Going Micro to Go Negative? | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9085

Abstract

Abstract

Spreading uncivil negative campaign messages is a “high-risk, high reward” campaign strategy since certain voters are more likely to be swayed by negative messaging whereas other voters are more inclined to feel sympathy with the attacked. Due to its risks, campaigns may attempt to outsource their uncivil ads to outside groups thus distancing themselves from the negativity and potentially avoiding any backlash. But at a time when advertising platforms boast of their ability to deliver ads to highly targeted audiences, uncivil negative ads could also be optimized to narrowly target citizens to which they are more likely to appeal. To study whether such optimizations are occurring, we retrieve all online advertisements that were placed on Facebook platforms (incl. Instagram) in the seven months prior to the US 2020 election. We perform multilevel ordinal regressions and find that ads from official political campaigns are more likely to be toxic when targeted at a narrower audience, whereas “dark money” outside groups (like super PACs and non-profits) are more likely to target broad audiences with their toxicity. In addition, we find that ads from outside groups are more likely to be toxic. We discuss the findings in light of this evidence and reflect upon future research regarding microtargeting negative messages on online platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2023.1.001.VOTT
2023-02-01
2024-03-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/26659085/5/1/CCR2023.1.001.VOTT.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2023.1.001.VOTT&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ali, M., Sapiezynski, P., Bogen, M., Korolova, A., Mislove, A., & Rieke, A. (2019). Discrimination through Optimization: How Facebook’s Ad Delivery Can Lead to Biased Outcomes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359301
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ali, M., Sapiezynski, P., Korolova, A., Mislove, A., & Rieke, A. (2021). Ad Delivery Algorithms: The Hidden Arbiters of Political Messaging. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3437963.3441801
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ANES. (2021). 2020 Time Series Study. Retrieved April26, 2021, from https://electionstudies.org/data-center/2020-time-series-study/
  4. Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? [Publisher: [American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press]]. The American Political Science Review, 88(4), 829–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082710
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anstead, N. (2017). Data-Driven Campaigning in the 2015 United Kingdom General Election. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(3), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217706163
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbu, O. (2014). Advertising, Microtargeting and Social Media. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 163, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.284
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baum, L. (2020). Presidential General Election Ad Spending Tops $1.5 Billion | Wesleyan Media Project. Retrieved March28, 2021, from https://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases-102920/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. (1977). Voting and party competition: A theoretical critique and synthesis applied to surveys from ten democracies. Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chand, D. E. (2017). Dark Money” and “Dirty Politics”: Are anonymous ads more negative?Business and Politics, 19(3), 454–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2016.13
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Confessore, N. (2018). Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far. The New York Times. Retrieved April13, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Constine, J. (2019). Facebook launches searchable transparency library of all active ads. Retrieved April30, 2021, from https://social.techcrunch.com/2019/03/28/facebook-ads-library/
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Coordination Watch. (2022). Coordination Watch. Retrieved April7, 2022, from https://www.coordinationwatch.org
  14. CRP. (2021a). 2020 Outside Spending, by Group | OpenSecrets. Retrieved April25, 2021, from https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2020&disp=O&type=A&chrt=D
  15. CRP. (2021b). Online Political Ad Spending. Retrieved April25, 2021, from https://www.opensecrets.org/online-ads
  16. CRP. (2022). Outside Spending | OpenSecrets. Retrieved April19, 2022, from https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/
  17. Damore, D. F. (2002). Candidate Strategy and the Decision to Go Negative [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Political Research Quarterly, 55(3), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290205500309
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dobber, T., Metoui, N., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., & de Vreese, C. (2020). Do (Microtargeted) Deepfakes Have Real Effects on Political Attitudes? [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 1940161220944364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220944364
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dobber, T., Ó Fathaigh, R., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2019). The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1440
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dobber, T., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., & de Vreese, C. H. (2017). Two crates of beer and 40 pizzas: The adoption of innovative political behavioural targeting techniques. Internet Policy Review, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2017.4.777
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dommett, K. (2019). Data-driven political campaigns in practice: Understanding and regulating diverse data-driven campaigns. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1432
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper Collins. Edyvane, D. (2020). Incivility as Dissent. Political Studies, 68(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719831983
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Facebook Business Help Center. (2021). About Potential Reach. Retrieved May5, 2021, from https://www.facebook.com/business/help/1665333080167380
  24. FEC. (2021). Committees. Retrieved April25, 2021, from https://www.fec.gov/data/committees/?cycle=2020
  25. Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fowler, E. F., Franz, M. M., Martin, G. J., Peskowitz, Z., & Ridout, T. N. (2021). Political Advertising Online and Offiine. American Political Science Review, 115(1), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000696
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Frederic, N. S., & Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2018). Heterogeneity of Ingroup Identity and Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: The Moderating Role of RWA and Outgroup Homogeneity. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.152
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Frimer, J. A., & Skitka, L. J. (2018). The Montagu Principle: Incivility decreases politicians’ public approval, even with their political base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(5), 845–866. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000140
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Garramone, G. M. (1984). Voter Responses to Negative Political Ads. Journalism Quarterly, 61(2), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908406100202
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns [OCLC: ocm60589072]. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gervais, B. T. (2019). Rousing the Partisan Combatant: Elite Incivility, Anger, and Antideliberative Attitudes. Political Psychology, 40(3), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12532
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ghosh, A., Venkatadri, G., & Mislove, A. (2019). Analyzing political advertisers’ use of facebook’s targeting features. IEEE workshop on technology and consumer protection (ConPro’19).
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Google Cloud Vision API. (2022). Vision AI | Derive Image Insights via ML | Cloud Vision API. Retrieved May22, 2022, from https://cloud.google.com/vision
  34. Hannun, A., Case, C., Casper, J., Catanzaro, B., Diamos, G., Elsen, E., Prenger, R., Satheesh, S., Sengupta, S., Coates, A., & Ng, A. Y. (2014). Deep Speech: Scaling up end-to-end speech recognition [arXiv: 1412.5567]. arXiv:1412.5567 [cs]. Retrieved January30, 2021, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5567
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Haselmayer, M. (2019). Negative campaigning and its consequences: A review and a look ahead. French Politics, 17(3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics [OCLC:ocn557406946]. Temple University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hersh, E. D., & Schaffner, B. F. (2013). Targeted Campaign Appeals and the Value of Ambiguity. The Journal of Politics, 75(2), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613000182
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hilbig, B. E. (2009). Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 983–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.012
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hill, R. P. (1989). An Exploration of Voter Responses to Political Advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 18(4), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1989.10673163
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hopp, T., Vargo, C. J., Dixon, L., & Thain, N. (2020). Correlating Self-Report and Trace Data Measures of Incivility: A Proof of Concept. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814241
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim, Y. M., Hsu, J., Neiman, D., Kou, C., Bankston, L., Kim, S. Y., Heinrich, R., Baragwanath, R., & Raskutti, G. (2018). The Stealth Media? Groups and Targets behind Divisive Issue Campaigns on Facebook. Political Communication, 35(4), 515–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1476425
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kreiss, D. (2016). Prototype politics: Technology-intensive campaigning and the data of democracy. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Krotzek, L. J. (2019). Inside the Voter’s Mind: The Effect of Psychometric Microtargeting on Feelings Toward and Propensity to Vote for a Candidate. International Journal of Communication; Vol 13 (2019). https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/9605
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Krupnikov, Y. (2011). When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout [Publisher: [Midwest Political Science Association, Wiley]]. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 797–813. Retrieved May4, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23025121
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Krupnikov, Y. (2015). KyleMattes and David P.Redlawsk. The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2014. 256 pp. $75.00 (cloth). $25.00 (paper). Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(3), 825–827. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv032
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Krupnikov, Y., & Piston, S. (2015). Accentuating the Negative: Candidate Race and Campaign Strategy. Political Communication, 32(1), 152–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.914612
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kruschinski, S., & Haller, A. (2017). Restrictions on data-driven political micro-targeting in Germany. Internet Policy Review, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2017.4.780
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lau, R. R., & Rovner, I. B. (2009). Negative Campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(1), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071905.101448
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. B. (2007). The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lavigne, M. (2020). Strengthening ties: The influence of microtargeting on partisan attitudes and the vote. Party Politics, 135406882091838. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068820918387
    [Google Scholar]
  51. López Ortega, A. (2021). Are microtargeted campaign messages more negative and diverse? An analysis of Facebook Ads in European election campaigns. European Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-021-00346-6
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Los Angeles Times. (2012). Attack ads to blast Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital. Retrieved April30, 2022, from https://www.latimes.com/la-xpm-2012-jan-07-la-na-0108-gingrich-romney-bain-20120108-story.html
  53. Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing During a Political Campaign. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00003.x
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Metcalf, A. L., Angle, J. W., Phelan, C. N., Muth, B. A., & Finley, J. C. (2018). More “Bank” for the Buck: Microtargeting and Normative Appeals to Increase Social Marketing Efficiency [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Social Marketing Quarterly, 25(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500418818063
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Muddiman, A. (2017). Personal and Public Levels of Political Incivility [Number: 0]. International Journal of Communication, 11(0), 21. Retrieved May2, 2022, from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6137
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2020). Is Negative Campaigning a Matter of Taste? Political Attacks, Incivility, and the Moderating Role of Individual Differences. American Politics Research, 1532673X2096554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20965548
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Pascual-Ferrá, P., Alperstein, N., Barnett, D. J., & Rimal, R. N. (2021). Toxicity and verbal aggression on social media: Polarized discourse on wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic [Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd]. Big Data & Society, 8(1), 20539517211023533. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211023533
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Perspective API. (2021). About the API – Attributes and Languages. Retrieved May5, 2021, from https://developers.perspectiveapi.com/s/about-the-api-attributes-and-languages
  60. Pew Research Center. (2020). Voters’ reflections on the campaign. Retrieved May2, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/11/20/voters-reflections-on-the-campaign/
  61. Raynauld, V., & Turcotte, A. (2018). Different Strokes for Different Folks”: Implications of Voter Micro-Targeting and Appeal in the Age of Donald Trump. In J.Gillies (Ed.), Political Marketing in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election (pp. 11–28). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59345-6_2
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ridout, T. N., Franz, M. M., & Fowler, E. F. (2015). Sponsorship, Disclosure, and Donors: Limiting the Impact of Outside Group Ads [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Political Research Quarterly, 68(1), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912914563545
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Riker, W. H. (1991). Why Negative Campaigning Is Rational: The Rhetoric of the Ratification Campaign of 1787–1788. Studies in American Political Development, 5(2), 224–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X00000249
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Riker, W. H., Calvert, R. L., Mueller, J. E., & Wilson, R. K. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Roberts, C. (2013). A Functional Analysis Comparison of Web-Only Advertisements and Traditional Television Advertisements from the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Campaigns. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012468741
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Robertson, D. B. (1976). A theory of party competition. J. Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Rohrschneider, R. (2002). Mobilizing versus chasing: How do parties target voters in election campaigns?Electoral Studies, 21(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00044-5
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Rossini, P. (2020). Beyond Incivility: Understanding Patterns of Uncivil and Intolerant Discourse in Online Political Talk. Communication Research, 009365022092131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921314
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Rossini, P. (2021). More Than Just Shouting? Distinguishing Interpersonal-Directed and Elite-Directed Incivility in Online Political Talk. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 205630512110088. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211008827
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Roy, J., & Alcantara, C. (2016). Fighting Fire with Fire: The Implications of (Not) Going Negative in a Multiparty Election Campaign. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423916000548
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Scala, D. J. (2014). Are Super PACs Arms of Political Parties? A Study of Coordination. In R. W.Holder & P. B.Josephson (Eds.), The American Election 2012: Contexts and Consequences (pp. 69–80). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137389220_7
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Simonsohn, U., Simmons, J. P., & Nelson, L. D. (2015). Specification Curve: Descriptive and Inferential Statistics on All Reasonable Specifications. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2694998
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M. (2011). From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616658637
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Stuckelberger, S. (2019). Mobilizing and chasing: The voter targeting of negative campaigning – Lessons from the Swiss case. Party Politics, 135406881985225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819852252
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1410
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sydnor, E. (2019). Disrespectful democracy: The psychology of political incivility. Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., & Popa, S. A. (2020). The Dynamics of Political Incivility on Twitter. SAGE Open, 10(2), 215824402091944. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919447
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Theocharis, Y., & Jungherr, A. (2021). Computational Social Science and the Study of Political Communication [Publisher: Routledge]. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1833121
    [Google Scholar]
  81. US Census Bureau. (2020). 2019 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin [Section: Government]. Retrieved April26, 2021, from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2020/population-estimates-detailed.html
  82. Vaithiyanathan, D., & Muniraj, M. (2019). Cloud based Text extraction using Google Cloud Vison for Visually Impaired applications. 2019 11th International Conference on Advanced Computing(ICoAC), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICoAC48765.2019.246822
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model: Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Valli, C., & Nai, A. (2020). Attack politics from Albania to Zimbabwe: A large-scale comparative study on the drivers of negative campaigning. International Political Science Review, 019251212094641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120946410
    [Google Scholar]
  85. van Atteveldt, W., & Peng, T.-Q. (2018). When Communication Meets Computation: Opportunities, Challenges, and Pitfalls in Computational Communication Science [Publisher: Routledge]. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2-3), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1458084
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Vargo, C. J., & Hopp, T. (2020). Fear, Anger, and Political Advertisement Engagement: A Computational Case Study of Russian-Linked Facebook and Instagram Content. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(3), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020911884
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Votta, F. (2021). Favstats/peRspective [original-date: 2019-05-06T21:53:53Z]. Retrieved May6, 2021, from https://github.com/favstats/peRspective
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Wagner, K. (2017). Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spent $81 million on Facebook ads before last year’s election. Retrieved March28, 2021, from https://www.vox.com/2017/11/1/16593066/trump-clinton-facebook-advertising-money-election-president-russia
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Wakabayashi, D. (2017). Google Cousin Develops Technology to Flag Toxic Online Comments. The New York Times. Retrieved April5, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/technology/google-jigsaw-monitor-toxic-online-comments.html
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Walter, A. S., & van der Eijk, C. (2019). Unintended consequences of negative campaigning: Backlash and second-preference boost effects in a multi-party context. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21(3), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148119842038
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Who Targets Me. (2020). How to get to “gold standard” political ad transparency. Retrieved May5, 2021, from https://whotargets.me/how-to-take-a-gold-standard-approach-to-political-advertising-transparency-and-policy/
  92. Who Targets Me. (2021). WhoTargetsMe/ad-transparency-standards [original-date: 2020-12-16T11:40:34Z]. Retrieved May5, 2021, from https://github.com/WhoTargetsMe/ad-transparency-standards
  93. Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Augusteijn, H. E. M., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C. M., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2016). Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Zarouali, B., Dobber, T., De Pauw, G., & de Vreese, C. (2020). Using a Personality-Profiling Algorithm to Investigate Political Microtargeting: Assessing the Persuasion Effects of Personality-Tailored Ads on Social Media. Communication Research, 009365022096196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220961965
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Moeller, J., Kruikemeier, S., Ó Fathaigh, R., Irion, K., Dobber, T., Bodó, B., & de Vreese, C. H. (2018). Online Political Microtargeting: Promises and Threats for Democracy (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 3128787). Social Science Research Network. Rochester, NY. Retrieved September10, 2020, from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3128787
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2023.1.001.VOTT
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/CCR2023.1.001.VOTT
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error