Unleash Britain’s Potential (To Go Negative): Campaign Negativity in the 2017 and 2019 UK General Elections on Facebook

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Studies Review Pub Date : 2023-05-30 DOI:10.1177/14789299231171308
Patrícia Rossini, Rosalynd Southern, Emily Harmer, Jennifer Stromer-Galley
{"title":"Unleash Britain’s Potential (To Go Negative): Campaign Negativity in the 2017 and 2019 UK General Elections on Facebook","authors":"Patrícia Rossini, Rosalynd Southern, Emily Harmer, Jennifer Stromer-Galley","doi":"10.1177/14789299231171308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Negative campaigning has long concerned scholars because of the potential effects on the electorate and on democracy. Most scholarship has focused on single-election studies in the United States, whereas less is known about how campaigns go on the attack in the UK, and few compare two elections. Drawing from a dataset of Facebook posts by parties and leaders in Great Britain during the five weeks of campaigning in the 2017 and 2019 General Elections (N = 3560), we use supervised machine learning to categorise posts as negative campaigning and distinguish between attacks focused on issues and attacks on candidates’ images. Our findings show that the 2019 election was more negative than in 2017, and that larger parties were more inclined to adopt attacks as a campaign strategy. Moreover, we found that party accounts posted more attack messages than leader accounts and were more focused on attacking based on issues, rather than personal character or image. Finally, we found that attack messages elicit stronger engagement from audiences, with attack messages receiving more attention, particularly attacks on image.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231171308","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Negative campaigning has long concerned scholars because of the potential effects on the electorate and on democracy. Most scholarship has focused on single-election studies in the United States, whereas less is known about how campaigns go on the attack in the UK, and few compare two elections. Drawing from a dataset of Facebook posts by parties and leaders in Great Britain during the five weeks of campaigning in the 2017 and 2019 General Elections (N = 3560), we use supervised machine learning to categorise posts as negative campaigning and distinguish between attacks focused on issues and attacks on candidates’ images. Our findings show that the 2019 election was more negative than in 2017, and that larger parties were more inclined to adopt attacks as a campaign strategy. Moreover, we found that party accounts posted more attack messages than leader accounts and were more focused on attacking based on issues, rather than personal character or image. Finally, we found that attack messages elicit stronger engagement from audiences, with attack messages receiving more attention, particularly attacks on image.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
释放英国的潜力(走向消极):Facebook上2017年和2019年英国大选中的竞选消极情绪
由于对选民和民主的潜在影响,负面竞选一直是学者们关注的问题。大多数学术研究都集中在美国的一次选举研究上,而对英国的竞选活动如何进行攻击知之甚少,很少有人比较两次选举。根据英国政党和领导人在2017年和2019年大选五周竞选期间发布的Facebook帖子数据集(N = 3560),我们使用监督式机器学习将帖子分类为负面竞选活动,并区分针对问题的攻击和针对候选人形象的攻击。我们的研究结果表明,2019年的选举比2017年更加负面,大党更倾向于将攻击作为竞选策略。此外,我们发现政党账号比领导账号发布了更多的攻击信息,并且更关注基于问题的攻击,而不是个人性格或形象。最后,我们发现,攻击信息会引起观众更强的参与,攻击信息得到更多的关注,尤其是对形象的攻击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Studies Review
Political Studies Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Political Studies Review provides unrivalled review coverage of new books and literature on political science and international relations and does so in a timely and comprehensive way. In addition to providing a comprehensive range of reviews of books in politics, PSR is a forum for a range of approaches to reviews and debate in the discipline. PSR both commissions original review essays and strongly encourages submission of review articles, review symposia, longer reviews of books and debates relating to theories and methods in the study of politics. The editors are particularly keen to develop new and exciting approaches to reviewing the discipline and would be happy to consider a range of ideas and suggestions.
期刊最新文献
Acupuncture Treatment for Generalized Anxiety Disorder by Activating the Vagus Nerve and Improving Heart-Rate Variability and Heart-Rhythm Coherence, A Case-Series Study. Factions and the Redistributive Effects of Reform in Japan Commissioned Book Review: Patrick Diamond, The British Labour Party in Opposition and Power, 1979–2019: Forward March Halted? Contesting European Union From the ‘Heart of Europe’: A Peculiar Case of Polish Populist Euroscepticism After 2015 Economic Insecurity and the Rise of Anti-Immigrant Sentiments: The Role of Labor Market Risks and Welfare Deservingness Perception
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1