Search results

The purpose of this paper to understand why some members of Congress have more Instagram followers, and why some Congressional Instagram posts receive more likes and comments.

This study is based on a content analysis of every Instagram post shared by all members of Congress who were seated for the first six months of the 115th Congress (17,811 posts in all). Information was collected at both the account level, as well as at the level of the individual post. Variables were then created to predict a member's followers and a post's likes and comments using a series of regression models.

This paper finds that factors capturing real world influence best explain why some members have more followers on Instagram. Senators, members who have served longer in office, past or future presidential candidates, Congressional leaders and ideological extremists all had significantly more followers. This paper also shows that personal content such as family photos, personal photos, selfies and pet photos produces significantly more user responses, while impersonal content like text based posts produces fewer.

This paper offers a general understanding of how anyone might maximize their user engagement on Instagram.

Little published research has studied how politicians use Instagram. This paper expands previous work examining influence on Twitter and Facebook. Further, these findings shed light on broader issues, including how social media reinforces existing power biases, and on the increasing trend towards personalization in American politics.

The purpose of this paper is to understand why some US Senators have more low-quality followers than others and the potential impact of low-quality followers on understanding constituent preferences.

For each US Senator, data on Twitter followers was matched with demographic characteristics proven to influence behavior. An OLS regression model evaluated why some Senators attract more low-quality followers than others. Then, observations on the impact of low-quality followers were discussed along with potential effects on information gathering and constituent representation.

This study finds that total followers, ideology and length of time on Twitter are all significant predictors of whether a Senator might attract low-quality followers. Low-quality followers can have wide-ranging implications on Senator’s use of social media data to represent constituents and develop public policy.

The data set only includes Senators from the 115th Congress (2017–2018). As such, future research could expand the data to include additional Senators or members of the House of Representatives.

Information is essential in any decision-making environment, including legislatures. Understanding why some users, particularly public opinion leaders, attract more low-quality social media followers could help decision-makers better understand where information is coming from and how they might choose to evaluates its content.

This study finds two practical implications for public opinion leaders, including Senators. First, accounts must be actively monitored to identify and weed-out low-quality followers. Second, users need to be wary of disinformation and misinformation and they need to develop strategies to identify and eliminate it from the collection of follower preferences.

This study uses a unique data set to understand why some Senators have more low-quality followers than others and the impact on information gathering. Other previous studies have not addressed this issue in the context of governmental decision-making or constituent representation.

From one angle, abortion law appears to confirm the regime politics account of the Supreme Court; after all, the Reagan/Bush coalition succeeded in significantly curtailing the constitutional protection of abortion rights. From another angle, however, it is puzzling that the Reagan/Bush Court repeatedly refused to overturn Roe v. Wade. We argue that time and again electoral considerations led Republican elites to back away from a forceful assertion of their agenda for constitutional change. As a result, the justices generally acted within the range of possibilities acceptable to the governing regime but still typically had multiple doctrinal options from which to choose.