Online and Undecided: Voters and the Internet in the ... - CiteSeerX

14 downloads 16227 Views 298KB Size Report
This article addresses the Internet as a campaign communication channel, and the approach is to .... tions through a discussion of digital inequalities and the importance of electoral ..... rienced voter, and the party website might prove the best source for basic .... response rate was 68 percent and the sample N was 2,015.
ISSN 0080–6757 Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2009.00238.x © 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

Online and Undecided: Voters and the Internet in the Contemporary Norwegian Election Campaign Rune Karlsen*

This article addresses the Internet as a campaign communication channel, and the approach is to explore voters’ use of the Internet for electoral information in the contemporary Norwegian campaign.Theoretically it is argued for a distinction between party-controlled and uncontrolled online communication channels, and this distinction proves important as patterns of use differ between these two types of the new media. Based on digital inequalities and assertions of web campaigning being ‘preaching to the converted’, the article explores the factors that contribute to the use of the Internet for electoral information, and to what extent online voters are available on the electoral market. The article finds that the Internet was an important information source for a relatively small, but nonetheless substantial, part of the electorate. However, most other channels of communication were considered more important. Digital inequalities related to socioeconomic status and gender are mostly about following the campaign on online newspapers (uncontrolled), not acquiring information from party websites (controlled). Moreover, while the youngest, most inexperienced voters visited party websites to a greater extent than their older cohorts,they did not follow the campaign on online newspapers to a greater extent.Furthermore, online voters are not ‘converted’ to a party, but are available on the electoral market.

Electoral information is a key aspect of modern democracies and democratic theory. Dahl (1998, 37) maintains that each voter should have equal opportunity to learn about the relevant policy alternatives and their likely consequences. The opportunities to learn about politics have changed considerably during the last decades. Once campaigning was about mobilising the party electorate through mass rallies. Today the ties between parties and voters have weakened, voter volatility has increased and most people get their information about politics and the campaign from the (mass) media. Furthermore, the last decade or so has seen the increasing prominence of new information and communication technologies (ICTs). Indeed, campaigning is said to have entered a new period characterised by extensive use of the new ICTs (Farrell 1996; Farrell & Webb 2000; Norris 2000; Blumler & Kavanagh 1999). Whereas ICTs generally have received a great deal of * Rune Karlsen, Research Fellow, Institute for Social Research, PO Box 3233, Elisenberg, 0208 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]

28

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

attention in the social sciences, the focus in electoral research has mostly been on parties and party websites (Gibson 2004).1 Less attention has been given to the voters’ use of the Internet in election campaigns. My concern in this article is to address the Internet as a campaign communication channel, and the approach is a study of voters’ use of the Internet for electoral information in the contemporary Norwegian campaign. Norway is an interesting case as Internet access and use is among the highest in the world. In 2006, almost 90 percent of people in Norway had access and almost 50 percent used the Internet every day. Hence, a basic condition for web campaigning – the diffusion of the Internet in the electorate – is comparatively very good. My main question is to what extent and in what sense voters use the Internet and assess it important for electoral information compared to traditional information sources. Theoretically I argue that the distinction between party-controlled and party-uncontrolled communication channels is of particular importance in this respect. Previous research on web campaigning has not really addressed how the Internet introduces different types of campaign communication channels. I argue theoretically and show empirically how patterns of use differ between these two types of the new media. Two aspects are investigated. The first concerns which factors contribute to the use of the Internet for electoral information. The digital divide has received widespread attention and refers to the inequalities related to access to and use of the new technology (e.g. Norris 2001; Van Dijk 2005; Selwyn 2004). Consequently, I explore differences between groups concerning the use of the Internet for electoral information based on such inequalities. The distinction between party-controlled and party-uncontrolled communication channels proves important in this respect. The youngest most inexperienced voters in need of elementary information about the parties can be expected to visit party websites for information to a greater extent than their more experienced counterparts. However, when Internet use is controlled for, there is no reason to expect that the youngest voters will follow the campaign on online newspapers to a greater extent.The findings suggest that this indeed is the case. The second aspect concerns the electoral availability of the voters that acquire information from a party website. We know that online voters are politically aware,and consequently Norris (2003) has described party website communication as preaching to the converted. However, although online voters are interested in politics, they do not necessarily have close ties to political parties. This is an essential concern if we want to understand the influence of the Internet on campaigning. Studies of party campaign strategy reveal that a primary objective for party and candidate websites is to win voters (Karlsen 2009; Foot & Schneider 2006). Hence, a central second question in this article is to what extent voters who visit websites are available Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

29

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

on the electoral market. The findings suggest that online voters to a great extent are undecided voters. The article proceeds as follows. In the first part I offer an account of campaign development and electoral information and emphasise how the Internet has introduced both new party-controlled and party-uncontrolled campaign communication channels. Then I substantiate my research questions through a discussion of digital inequalities and the importance of electoral experience, followed by a discussion of the notion of ‘preaching to the converted’. In the second part I explore my research questions empirically. I first investigate differences between groups concerning the use of the Internet for electoral information based on digital inequalities, and then I investigate whether and to what extent online voters are available in the electoral market. In the final section I summarise and discuss the findings in light of the framework sketched out initially.

Campaign Development and Electoral Information As already stated, campaigning in advanced democracies is said to have entered a new stage characterised by extensive use of ICTs. This assertion originates from an influential conceptual framework that describes campaign evolvement as a modernisation process in three stages: a newspaper (premodern) period, a television (modern) period and a digital (postmodern) period (Norris 2000; Farrell 1996; Farrell & Webb 2000; Blumler & Kavanagh 1999). In the first period, campaigning was characterised by strong ties between parties and voters, and it was essentially mobilisation of party electorates. Hence, voters got their electoral information mostly through partisan mass rallies and party-controlled newspapers. The second period coincides with the introduction of television and the weakening of the ties between parties and voters.With television, almost everybody consumed the same news,and campaigning aimed at winning voters across social categories. As a consequence, the share of the electorate that received political information increased considerably, and indirect modes of communication – mainly television – became the most important source for political and electoral information. The still emerging third period is characterised by the extensive use of the new ICTs as well as the considerable involvement of campaign professionals. The new media increases the available political information, contributes to media fragmentation through increasing media outlets and offers the parties a direct channel to the electorate. The three-stage framework leaves the impression of a modernisation process, and that campaigning in all advanced democracies will end up in the third stage. A more recent promising take on campaign change is the hybridisation model (Plasser & Plasser 2002). In this perspective, the 30

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association Figure 1. Typology of Mediated Campaign Communication Channels.

campaign environment is considered essential, and whether and how systems adopt new campaign practices depends on a range of contextual factors. Hence, the use of the Internet for electoral information might differ from system to system according to contextual features. Even though the Internet increases the available information, it is essential to consider what type(s) of campaign communication channels the new technology introduces. Broadly speaking, parties have two main types of mediated communication channels aimed towards the electorate: controlled channels and uncontrolled channels. Controlled communication channels are media where the parties exercise full content control (e.g. pamphlets, commercials and advertisements). Uncontrolled communication channels are media where parties do not exercise such control (e.g. television, newspapers, radio). In the typology of campaign communication channels presented above, these two aspects – media technology (press, broadcast television/radio) and new media (ICTs) and control – are combined (Figure 1). The typology identifies six types of communication channels. The main purpose with the typology, in this context, is to emphasise how new media includes both party-controlled and party-uncontrolled communication channels. Concerning the uncontrolled media, the campaign coverage in online newspapers is filtered by journalistic criteria in the same manner as the traditional uncontrolled media. The new controlled channels (i.e. party websites) enable parties to present news as well as basic information about their policy in a much more dynamic fashion than they were able to via the traditional controlled media.2 So far, the potential of the website as a dynamic communication channel has arguably been more emphasised than the actual impact: it seems that web campaigning is constantly disappointing Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

31

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

political observers. Still, as the typology suggests, party websites should not really be compared to television and newspapers on equal terms. The party websites should rather be considered a supplement to these media and (maybe) more justifiably be compared to traditional controlled media concerning the impact on the campaign. With this in mind, what do we know about voters’ use of electoral information sources during campaigns?

Use of Information Sources As the subsequent literature review reveals, according to the voters themselves, television is by far the most important information electoral channel in advanced democracies. In comparison, it appears that the Internet plays a minor part. According to the Pew Research Center (2004), television was the dominant medium in the American presidential election in 2004: 78 percent mentioned TV as their main source of campaign news; and newspapers followed with 38 percent mentioning it as either the most or the second most important medium. The Internet was a main source of campaign news for 13 percent of Americans. However, the number of Americans that mentioned the Internet as their main source had nearly doubled from the election in 2000. Furthermore, 13 percent stated that they regularly learned something about the candidates and the campaign from the Internet. Approximately 20 percent of Americans aged 18–29 regularly learned from the Internet; another 24 percent learned from the Internet sometimes. The total amounts to almost half of the young adult population. During the 2005 British campaign, 3 percent of the population obtained a lot of their information about the election online; 5 percent got some of their information and another 8 percent got a little of their information from the Internet. Accordingly, 83 percent of the British population got none of their information about the election online (Lusoli & Ward 2005). The young (18–24) were twice as likely as the average to get at least a little of their information online. Men and educated persons were also more likely to get information from the Internet. In a study of the Internet as an electoral information source in 25 countries during the 2004 European Parliament campaign, Lusoli (2005) found similar results. The share of the electorate that searched the Internet for information about the election ranges from 4 percent in Greece to 13 percent in Finland. In Finland, 10 percent of the electorate also visited a candidate or party website (Carlson & Strandberg 2005). During the 2003 campaign in the Netherlands, 17 percent of the electorate visited a party website, and the young, the highly educated and people who are interested in politics were more inclined to visit a party website (Voerman & Boogers 2008, 207). A study of the 2001 Norwegian parliamentary election campaign concluded that television and national newspapers were the most important information 32

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

sources for Norwegian voters. However, twice as many mentioned television as newspapers. Only 6 percent mentioned the Internet as their first or second most important source. Even young Norwegians under 30 years of age held back, with less than one in ten mentioning the Internet (Waldahl & Aardal 2004).Moreover,according to the 2001 Norwegian Election Study,8 percent of the electorate visited a party website (Hestvik 2004). Some 9 percent of the Swedish electorate reported to have visited a party website during 2002 parliamentary election campaign – an increase from 8 percent in 1998 (Petersson et al. 2006, 160). During the 2006 campaign, 14 percent of the Swedish electorate visited a party website, while 36 percent of the electorate got information about the campaign from an online newspaper (Oscarsson & Holmberg 2008, 67–84). Almost a quarter of the voters with Internet access visited a party website during the 2005 Danish election campaign, and the young were most inclined to go online (Hansen & Kosiara-Pedersen 2009) Based on this review, what can we expect concerning the extent to which and in what sense voters use the Internet and assess it important for electoral information? Even though campaigning is asserted to have entered a new period characterised by extensive use of ICTs, studies of recent elections show that the Internet is still struggling to make a real impact as an information source. Moreover, as stated, a number of system factors might influence the nature of campaigning (Plasser & Plasser 2002; Schmitt-Beck 2007). Concerning web campaigning, Ward et al. (2008) argue that the British experience is always going to be more low-key than the American.This is not because of lower level of Internet use, but because there are fewer incentives for the parties and voters to use the web. In Norway, parliamentary elections are pure party elections with proportional representation.Voters express list preferences, and there is only a theoretical possibility of influencing the candidate order. Hence campaigning in Norway is party-centred opposed to the candidate-centred American campaign (see Plasser & Plasser 2002; Dulio 2004). Although some politicians have their own blogs, homepages and so on, candidate websites are not a widespread phenomenon in Norway. In systems that emphasise individual candidates, independent candidate websites are much more common. The most obvious example is the United States, but candidate websites are also common in countries like Finland, where voters have great influence on the candidate order (Carlson & Strandberg 2005; Carlson & Strandberg 2008). It is reasonable to expect that the incentives to go online and check out what the candidates stand for is greater in a candidate-centred campaign than in a party-centred campaign where the same parties ‘always’ run for election. Hence, we can expect that the Internet plays a minor role as an electoral information source compared to traditional sources. However, some groups can be expected to use the Internet more frequently and consider it more important for electoral information. First we consider digital inequalities. Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

33

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

Digital Inequalities and Electoral Information The ‘digital divide’ refers to inequalities related to access to new technology and to knowledge about how to use it. Studies show that access to the Internet is highly correlated to social status – it is the well-educated who are online (Norris 2001; Selwyn 2004; Van Dijk 2005). According to Norris (2001), this difference echoes differences in other forms of information technology, and broad and deep-rooted patterns of social stratification are the major explanations for patterns of Internet diffusion. Therefore, she argues, we should not be shocked to find social inequalities on the Internet. The features of the digital divide are expected from works on diffusion of innovations (Rogers 1995). These theories suggest that the adoption of innovations follows a S-shaped pattern. Adoption of new technology is often slow initially, picking up speed and peaking when penetration levels reach the saturation point. Thereafter, demand slows down again. The early adopters are well educated, and are high earners. The argument is that education is associated with a better understanding of social change and media attention, and that high income is associated with the ability to purchase the innovations. Hence, from the extensive research on digital inequalities I expect that the factors related to the digital divide will have an effect concerning the use of the Internet for electoral information. The inequalities related to new media technology might, however, be more fundamental than suggested by diffusion theory. Studies reveal that people with a high level of education use the Internet in more instrumental ways than people with a lower level of education. The segments with lower levels of education tend to use the Internet more for entertainment purposes (Shah et al. 2001; Prior 2007). This suggests that the Internet might contribute to the so-called ‘information gap’. According to this thesis, the segments of the population with higher socioeconomic status tend to acquire the available information at a faster rate than the lower status segments (Tichenor et al. 1970, 159–60). When the Internet increases the information available in a society, the gap in knowledge between these segments will increase rather than decrease. Hence, I expect that education and socioeconomic status are likely to affect the use of the Internet for electoral information, even among the groups who use the Internet frequently. The factors related to the digital divide are also related to political participation, and are likely to predict increased use of any information source. The exception is age: the young are not more likely to be politically engaged, but they are more likely to have access to and use the Internet frequently. Above I argued that voters in a candidate-centred system will have greater incentives to go online as they know less about the candidates running for election. The same argument is valid concerning the electoral experience in a party-centred system. In a study of the online electorate in 34

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

the 2007 Danish campaign, Hoff (2008) found that the young used the Internet for political purposes to a greater extent than older voters. An inexperienced voter has greater need for information than the more experienced voter, and the party website might prove the best source for basic information.3 Hence, as inexperience at the polls is closely related to age,4 I expect that the youngest voters will use the party websites to a greater extent than their more experienced counterparts, even when the Internet use is controlled for. As discussed above, the party-controlled (party) websites offer the most basic information about parties, while the uncontrolled communications channels, like the online newspapers, offer coverage of the campaign based on journalistic principles in much the same manner as television and traditional newspapers. Hence, among the part of the electorate that uses the Internet frequently there is no reason the young should follow the campaign online to a greater extent. Therefore, although I expect that the youngest voters will get information from party websites to a greater extent than older cohorts, I do not expect the youngest to read about the campaign online to a greater extent when Internet use is controlled for.

Web Campaigning: Really Just Preaching to the Converted? In studies on web campaigning there seems to be a blurred distinction between the Internet as a strategic campaign tool and the Internet as a tool to enhance democracy. This is an important distinction, and is evident when party goals are considered. The literature on party goals distinguishes between three models of party behaviour based on primary goals: voteseeking, office-seeking and policy-seeking (Strøm 1990). During a campaign, winning voters must be expected to be the priority for parties, and the websites and strategic use of new technology must be expected to reflect this point. The claim that party website communication is ‘preaching to the converted’ is not rooted in such considerations about party campaign strategies, but in the early literature on ICTs that focus on how the Internet would enhance democracy as such. The claim originates from Norris’ (2003) study on 15 EU countries in 2001.With the phrase ‘preaching to the converted’, she merely implies that parties are most likely to reach citizens who are already interested and engaged in politics.5 The lack of distinction between a democratic and campaign perspective is more problematic in a recent study of the British 2005 campaign by Norris and Curtice (Forthcoming). They state initially that political websites often ‘preach to the converted’ rather than expand the pool of engaged citizens. Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

35

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

The influence of the Internet in a campaign is therefore, they argue, mostly indirect through opinion leaders. Hence, they formulate a two-step flow of Internet campaign communication. They do not investigate to what extent these online voters are available on the electoral marked. I do not doubt that the Internet is important in a two-step flow of campaign communication. For example, Hindman (2005) argues that Howard Dean used the fact that web campaigning is ‘preaching to the converted’ to his advantage during the 2004 primaries through using the Internet to reach the ones most likely to volunteer. In a European context, Lusoli and Ward (2004) report that British party activists are indeed using the Internet to supplement their traditional activities. However, this does not rule out the possibility that other parts of the online electorate might be available on the electoral market. In their work on the American context, Bimber and Davis (2003) report that the strategies of candidates in the 2000 presidential election campaign involved targeting audiences of supporters through the candidate websites. They found that the voters who visited a party website to a large extent where partisan supporters of that candidate. However, they also found that a small but nontrivial online audience consisted of non-supporters. A study of the Dutch 2002 election reported that a large part of the voters that went online for electoral information were floating or undecided voters (Boogers & Voerman 2003), and according to Gibson & MacAllister (2006), web campaigning had an independent effect on the vote in the 2004 Australian campaign. Hansen & Kosiara-Pedersen (2009) report that voters typically visit more than one party website, and consequently do no not just visit the website of the party for which they vote. Moreover, a study of party Internet strategy in the Norwegian 2005 campaign reported that parties aim to win voters as well as engage party activists through their website (Karlsen 2009), as is the case in the United States (Foot & Schneider 2006). Such a strategy would be in vain if only the party activists use the party websites. The central second question pursued in this article is therefore: to what extent are the voters who obtain information from a party website available on the electoral market?

The Study My data encompass the Norwegian Election Study 2005. The Norwegian Election Study is a national representative post-election survey. In 2005 the response rate was 68 percent and the sample N was 2,015. The fieldwork was carried out by Statistics Norway.6 In order to study the relative importance of the Internet, respondents were asked to rank seven information sources. The online newspapers were distinguished from other websites in order to differentiate between following 36

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

the election coverage in the online newspapers and using other aspects of the Internet for electoral information. To explore the frequency of Internet use for electoral information, respondents were asked how often they read about the election online. In addition, respondents were asked if they had visited party websites for information about the election. These two questions are partly designed to operationalise the distinction between following the campaign coverage online (on the uncontrolled media) and getting information from a party-controlled channel: the party website. As reported above, the party website question was also included in the 2001 Norwegian Election Study. I will include the 2001 data concerning the analysis on the availability of the online electorate.7 As stated initially, Norway is an interesting case as Internet access and use are among the highest in the world.According to the European Social Survey, 82 percent of the population had access to the Internet in 2004,and 37 percent used the Internet every day. In Europe, these numbers are only matched by Denmark and Sweden.According to the 2006 European Social Survey, about 50 percent of the population in Norway, Denmark and Sweden used the Internet every day for personal use – a substantially higher rate than other European countries. In Germany, for instance, 21 percent use the Internet every day, 23 percent in Spain, 31 percent in France and 30 percent in the United Kingdom.8 In the United States, about half the population used the Internet on a daily basis in 2006 (Pew Research Center 2006). The political system in Norway is characterised by a multiparty structure and a multidimensional cleavage structure. The party system is described in detail elsewhere (e.g. Urwin 1997).The largest party is the Labor Party (Ap), which together with the Socialist Left Party (SV), constitute what is called the left on the dominant left-right axis. The Conservative Party (H) and the Progress Party (FrP) constitute the right.The so-called ‘centre parties’ are the Liberals (V), the Centre Party (the agrarian party) (Sp) and the Christian Democratic Party (KrF).

Voters’ Use of Information Channels Norwegian voters pay a great deal of attention to what is going on in the campaign. According to our data, 65 percent of the electorate followed the campaign very or quite closely. In the subsequent part of this article I am interested in where voters went for information and to what extent they considered online electoral information important compared to other information sources. The respondents were asked: It is possible to gather information about the election in several different ways. How important were the following sources for you on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates ‘not important’ and 5 indicates ‘very important’? They were given the following Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

37

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association Table 1. Important Information Sources in the 2005 Campaign. Percentage and Mean Not important

Television National newspapers Family and friends Regional newspapers Radio Online newspapers Internet

Very important

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

N (100%)

6 19 14 21 31 60 68

7 11 14 14 18 9 11

14 20 29 23 20 11 9

22 24 26 20 17 10 7

51 27 18 23 14 10 5

4.04 3.29 3.20 3.10 2.66 2.02 1.70

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2008 2008

Note: *The differences between the means are all statistically significant.

alternatives in this order: online newspapers, national newspapers (not online versions), regional and local newspapers (not online versions), television, radio, Internet (not online newspapers), and family and friends.9 This question makes it possible to study the difference between traditional newspapers and online versions, and whether voters considered anything else besides the online newspapers on the Internet important. Table 1 reports the results. In 2005, as expected, television was by far the most important information source, followed by the national newspapers. More than half the electorate stated that TV was a very important information source, and the mean score was 4.04. The mean for newspapers was 3.29, and for friends and family 3.20. Of the seven ways to get information in a campaign, online newspapers and the Internet (disregarding online newspapers) were considered least important: 60 percent considered online newspapers not important, and 68 percent considered the Internet not important. Compared to the other media, the Internet appears to be of minor importance. However, how frequently did respondents go online to get information about the election campaign? According to our material, 85 percent of the Norwegian electorate has an Internet connection. Every tenth person with a connection is never online. That leaves us with 75 percent who used the Internet from time to time, 55 percent of whom – or 40 percent of the whole electorate – claimed they used the Internet every day. We asked respondents how often they read news about the election on the Internet, and if they visited party websites for information. According to our data, 17 percent of the population read about the election everyday on the Internet, another 17 percent at least once a week, and 15 percent less than once a week.That leaves us with more than half the population never reading about the election online, or conversely, almost half the population read about the 38

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

election online. In 2005, 13 percent visited party websites, up by five percentage points in four years. This might be a bit less than some – especially the parties – had expected and hoped for.To sum up,as expected,according to the voters themselves the Internet is relatively less important than other information sources. However, Internet use differs between voter groups. This is the topic for the subsequent section.

Digital Electoral Divide In this section I explore to what extent digital inequalities affect voter’s use of the Internet for electoral information. I first study the effects concerning the relative importance of information sources. To avoid averting the attention from the online sources, I reduce the number of information channels included in the analysis and compare online newspapers and the Internet (disregarding online newspapers) to television and radio. Television is included because it is the most important information source, while I include radio as the patterns of radio use differ from that of the new media. Figure 2 reports the mean concerning television, radio, online newspapers and the Internet (disregarding online newspapers) in four age groups. Although there are considerable differences between the age groups concerning new media and radio, it seems everybody agrees on the most important way to get electoral information: television. However, the young

Figure 2. Important Information Channels in Four Age Groups. Mean on a Scale from 1–5.

Notes: N = 17–24: 235; 24–44: 736; 45–66: 775; 67+: 262. The differences between the age groups concerning online newspapers and the Internet are statistically significant.

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

39

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

are more inclined to consider the Internet important for electoral information. Still, the means for online newspapers and the Internet do not supersede the scale’s halfway point for any age group. The discussion on the digital divide and political engagement allowed us to sketch a model to explain variation in the use of information sources. The variables in the model are age, gender, education, socioeconomic status (occupation) and political interest. Political interest, advanced level of education and high socioeconomic status are expected to co-vary with high ratings of all information channels. In addition, younger respondents are expected to consider the Internet and online newspapers important. Political interest can be considered an intermediate variable between the social background variables and media use. Hence I run the regression both without political interest (Model 1) and with political interest (Model 2). Table 2 reports the results of the multivariate regressions.10 The explained variance (R2) is highest for online newspapers and the Internet, indicating that the full model is better at explaining the use of these two information channels than television and radio.11 Like I expected, the factors related to the digital divide influence the assessment of the Internet for electoral information. In addition to age, socioeconomic status as well as political interest has an effect concerning online sources. The explained variance increases for television and radio when political interest is included in the model (M2). However, this is not the case for online newspapers and the Internet, indicating that some of the effect of the background variables is mediated through political interest. Interestingly, gender has an effect concerning online newspapers,but the effect on the Internet (disregarding online newspapers) is not significant at the 0.01 level when political interest is controlled for. This suggests that the difference between men and women is mostly about online news consumption. We will return to this point below. Concerning television, only political interest has an effect. Concerning radio, political interest and age have a significant effect. The older segments of the electorate consider radio more important than the young. In addition, people employed in the service and sales sector are more inclined to consider radio important for electoral information. As expected, the factors related to the digital divide have an effect on whether or not the Internet was considered important for electoral information. In what follows I explore the relationship between these factors and the tendency to use party-controlled communication channels (websites) for information and uncontrolled communication channels to follow the campaign (read about the election online). Again we first consider age: Figure 3 reports the share in four age groups that read about the election everyday and acquired information from a party website in 2005. To investigate whether or not digital inequalities affect the use of the Internet for the group that use the Internet frequently, we study the 40

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010 0.04

-0.05 -0.13 -0.30** 0.18 -0.34 -0.14

-0.02 0.06 0.13 -0.05 0.22 -0.09 0.31** 0.03

0.06 0.10 0.15 -0.04 0.20 -0.01

0.01

2.26** 0.02** 0.02 0.17

3.07** 0.00* -0.02 -0.06

Model 1

3.83** 0.01** -0.08 0.02

Model 2

Radio

-0.13 -0.17 -0.33** 0.17 -0.32 -0.23 0.34** 0.06

1.44** 0.01** 0.09 0.08

Model 2

0.18

0.46** 0.35** 0.38** -0.16 0.04 0.42**

2.70** -0.03** -0.37** 0.25**

0.42** 0.33** 0.37** -0.16 0.04 0.38** 0.16** 0.18

2.31** -0.03** -0.34** 0.21**

Model 2

Online papers Model 1

Notes: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05. aThe reference category is craft workers and machine operators.

Constant Age Gender (women) High education Occupationa Professionals/managers Associate professionals Service and sales Agricultural/fishery Unskilled workers Students Political interest Adjusted R2

Model 1

Television

0.14

0.32** 0.28** 0.24** 0.07 0.10 0.53**

2.21** -0.02** -0.16** 0.07

Model 1

0.29** 0.26** 0.23** 0.07 0.11 0.50** 0.14** 0.14

1.87** -0.03** -0.13* 0.03

Model 2

Internet

Table 2. Multivariate OLS Regression. The Effect of Age, Gender, Education, Occupation and Political Interest, for Assessment of Four Information Sources in the 2005 Norwegian Campaign. B-coefficients and Adjusted R2 reported (N = 1,931 for all analyses) © 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

41

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association Figure 3. The Percentage Share Who have Read about the Election on the Internet Every Day and Acquired Information from a Party Website in 2005. All Voters and Voters Who are Online Every Day.

Notes: N (all) = 17–24: 235; 24–44: 736; 45–66: 775; 67+: 262. N (Internet users) = 17–24: 143; 24–44: 416; 45–66: 243; 67+: 15. Too few cases (N = 15) in the group 67+ (Internet users). The differences between the age groups concerning party websites are significant at the 1 percent level.

electorate as a whole as well as the voters that are online every day, referred to as ‘frequent Internet users’. The figure shows the distinctive impact of age on people’s tendency to go online for electoral information. Let us first consider the electorate as a whole: 28 percent of those aged 17–24, 18 percent of those aged 25–44, 8 percent of those aged 45–66 and just 2 percent of those aged 67+ visited a party website in search of political information. Concerning following the campaign online, 21 percent aged 17–24 and 25 percent aged 25–44 read about the election online everyday. The share drops to 14 percent for those aged 45–66, and only 2 percent for those over the age of 67. As expected, the youngest group tends to get information from party websites to a greater extent, but this group does not follow the election online to a greater extent than more experienced voters aged 25–44. The same tendencies apply to the voters who are online everyday. While 41 percent of the frequent Internet users aged 17–24 visited a party website for information, just 24 percent of those aged 25–45 did it. However, while 30 percent of the youngest frequent Internet users followed the campaign election online every day, 40 percent of voters aged 25–44 did it. Moreover, 32 percent of frequent Internet users aged 45–66 read about the election every day on the Internet, equaling the youngest age group. To conclude, age has an affect on using the Internet for 42

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

electoral information; however, it seems that the effect is mostly related to party-controlled communication. Multivariate analysis show that age, education, socioeconomic status and political interest all have a significant effect on how often the Internet was used to read about the campaign. The same applies to visiting the party websites for information. These results are expected in light of the research on digital inequalities, and might be explained fully by wider Internet use patterns. However, we have already seen that concerning age the difference is replicated in the group of voters that uses the Internet frequently. In the subsequent section, we explore whether this is also true for gender, education, socioeconomic status and political interest by only including the part of the electorate that is online everyday. In addition, we explore the expectation formulated initially that inexperienced voters will get their information from the party website to a greater extent than more experienced voters, but not necessarily follow the campaign online to a greater extent. Therefore, age is not included as a continuous variable, but rather the three age groups are used to distinguish the inexperienced voters (aged 17–24) from more experienced voters (aged 25–44 and 45+).12 In addition to the multivariate models, I report the b-coefficients from bivariate OLS regressions. Table 3 reports the results. As expected, the youngest voters acquire information from party websites to a greater extent than older voters, even among the part of the electorate that is online everyday. And as expected they are not more inclined to follow the campaign online than older voters. Again we see that men are more likely than women to follow the campaign online, even when we control for Internet use. However, they are not more inclined to visit party websites for information. This implies that gender differences are mostly related to online news consumption. As expected, socioeconomic status affects the use of Internet for electoral information, even when Internet use is controlled for. However, this is only true for the uncontrolled aspect of the new media. Socioeconomic status does not affect acquiring information from party websites. Concerning education, the lack of an effect is due to many in the youngest group being too young to have a university degree.13 However, the bivariate effect of occupation is not significant: ‘professionals/managers’ are not more inclined than ‘craft workers/machine operators’ to acquire information from a party website. Students, however, are more inclined to visit party websites for information, but this effect is not significant when age and political interest is controlled for. The most central result, in addition to the different effect of age on party-controlled and party-uncontrolled sources, is the prominence of political interest. Among the part of the electorate that are online everyday, political interest has a distinct effect on the extent voters follow the election online and whether or not they obtain information from a party website.The Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

43

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association Table 3. Bivariate and Multivariate OLS Regression. The Effect of Age, Gender, Education, Occupation and Political Interest on Following the Campaign Online and Visiting Party Websites for Information. Only Those Who Use the Internet Every Day are Included in the Analysis (N = 802) Follow campaign Bivariate Constant Agea 25–44 45+ Gender (women) Education Occupationb Professionals/managers Associate professionals Service and sales Agricultural/fishery Unskilled workers Students Political interest Adjusted R2

Party websites

M1

M2

1.80**

0.66**

0.05 -0.31** -0.23** 0.25**

-0.19 -0.59** -0.33** 0.20*

-0.18 -0.67** -0.27** 0.09

-0.16** -0.22** -0.02 0.04

-0.19** -0.25** -0.04 0.09*

-0.18** -0.28** -0.02 0.05

0.45** 0.37** 0.20 -0.61 -0.02 0.36 0.45**

0.51** 0.40** 0.32* -0.47 -0.04 0.24

0.41** 0.32* 0.29 -0.49 0.04 0.16 0.45** 0.13

0.09 0.07 0.04 -0.08 0.04 0.25** 0.15**

0.09 0.07 0.05 -0.05 0.01 0.12

0.06 0.04 0.04 -0.06 0.03 0.09 0.16** 0.10

0.07

Bivariate

M1 0.32**

0.05

M2 -0.07

Notes: Adjusted R2 for the bivariate regressions: follow campaign; age (0.02) gender (0.01) education (0.01), occupation (0.02), political interest (0.07). Party websites; age (0.03), gender (0.00), education (0.00), occupation (0.02), political interest (0.04). **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05. aThe reference category is 17–24. bThe reference category is craft workers and machine operators.

explained variance (R2) is doubled when political interest is included in the model. This finding supports the assertion that some people, the politically interested, use the Internet for instrumental purposes – in this case, to get information about the campaign – while other parts of the population use the Internet for other purposes.

The Available Online Electorate In this section I explore the online population’s ties to the parties in general and more specifically whether the parts of the electorate that visit party websites for electoral information are available on the electoral market. The Norwegian campaign strategists emphasise the potential to win voters through the website (Karlsen 2009). In what follows, we study the electoral availability of the voters who visited party websites for electoral information. If the group consists of non-party members, voters who do not identify with a party, voters who decide what party to vote for during the campaign and voters who change party preference from one election to the next, it is possible to influence 44

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association Table 4. The Electoral Availability of the Voters that Visited Party Websites for Electoral Information, 2001 and 2005 2001 Visited PW Party member Member Not member Party identification Yes No Time of decision Before the campaign During the campaign Changed party 01–05 Same party Changed party

15 85 100 42 58 100 40 60 100 53 47 100

2005 Electorate

Visited PW

(N = 162)

8 92 100

15 85 100

(N=161)

41 59 100

50 50 100

(N=156)

47 53 100

41 59 100

(N= 58)

56 44 100

42 58 100

Electorate

(N = 260)

8 92 100

(N=260)

48 52 100

(N=244)

44 56 100

(N= 74)

53 47 100

their choice of vote through the website. In Table 4, the group that visited a party website is compared to the electorate as a whole. According to Table 4, online campaigning is more than preaching to the converted. In 2005, 85 percent of the group that got information from a party website was not party members: 50 percent did not identify with a party, 59 percent did not decide which party to vote for before the campaign and 59 percent changed their party preference between 2001 and 2005.Although the share of the electorate that visited party websites increased from 2001 to 2005, the numbers are very similar both years. However, it must be noted that party members are more likely to visit party websites than others as 8 percent of the electorate are party members, and 15 percent of the voters who visited a party website are party members. Even so, web campaigning cannot be considered ‘preaching to the converted’ if being converted implies already supporting the party.To conclude, it seems evident that party websites can be considered a tool to win voters during campaigns.

Discussion and Conclusion The aim of this article has been to study to what extent and in what sense the Internet is used as an electoral information source compared to other communication channels, and to argue for a distinction between party-controlled and party-uncontrolled online communication channels. This distinction has Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

45

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

proved essential when we consider the influence of the Internet on the campaign not only because party websites should not be compared to traditional uncontrolled media like television and newspapers on equal terms, but also because the pattern of use differs between following the campaign online and acquiring information from a party website. The study of the Norwegian campaign reveals that the Internet was an important information source for a relatively small but nonetheless substantial part of the electorate. The online newspapers were considered more prominent than other aspects of the Internet. However, most other channels of communication were considered more important than online sources. Television is still the most influential campaign communication channel. We have seen that 13 percent of the electorate visited a party website for information – an increase from 8 percent in 2001. Furthermore, 15 percent read about the election online everyday, while almost half the population read about the election online at least once during the campaign. The fact that the politically aware use the Internet most frequently for political purposes, made Norris (2003) describe online campaigning as ‘preaching to the converted’. However, the findings in this article show that far from all the voters who visited a party site can be considered ‘converted’ to a party: most are rather part of the available electorate. Only 15 percent of the voters who got information from a party website were party members, six of ten decided what party to vote for during the campaign and six of ten changed party from 2001 to 2005. In a multiparty context, voters do not choose between six or seven parties, but between two or three parties constituting their party set (e.g. Oscarsson & Holmberg 2008; Aardal & Karlsen 2008). Hence, although most who visit a party website are likely to be positive toward the party, many have not made up their mind about what party to vote for. Still, voters with close party ties are more likely to use party websites than other parts of the electorate. Consequently, a dual Internet campaign strategy that includes the objectives of both winning voters and activating activists appears sound (see Karlsen 2009). It is evident from the analysis that digital electoral information inequalities persist: age, gender, socioeconomic status and political interest are all factors that have a distinct effect on using the Internet for electoral information. This is related to the much talked-about digital divide. As mentioned, this divide is expected from the theory on diffusion of innovations (Rogers 1995). The Internet as a medium is arguably still relatively young, and although most people have access, some have had access and used the medium for over a decade, while others came online only recently. However, as accounted for above, there is evidence that the educated use the Internet for instrumental purposes, while the less educated use the Internet more for entertainment purposes (Shah et al. 2001; Prior 2007). The findings in this article add somewhat mixed evidence to this assertion. High socio-economic 46

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

status influences the tendency to read about the election online to some extent when Internet use is controlled for. However, the effect of political interest is stronger. And while socio-economic status does not affect acquiring information from a party website when Internet use is controlled for, political interest has a significant and strong effect. This is particularly important in relation to the information gap thesis (Tichenor et al. 1970). While massive media attention on a topic may reduce what is called the ‘awareness knowledge gap’, the ‘depth knowledge gap’ may be widening at the same time (Gaziano & Gaziano 1996). The point is that the Internet offers the interested public an opportunity to learn more about a topic (e.g. party policy) very easily; and indeed, when general Internet use is controlled for, political interest increases the likelihood of using the Internet for electoral information purposes. Yet, the distinction between party-controlled and party-uncontrolled communication channels offers some interesting insight concerning the information gap. I have already mentioned that socio-economic status seems to be more related to the consumption of online news than with an ambition to learn about electoral politics. Furthermore, both gender and age have a somewhat different effect concerning the two types of online information channels. Concerning gender, while men follow the campaign online to a greater extent and consider the online newspapers more important for electoral information than women, they do not visit the party websites for information to a greater extent. Hence, gender differences appear to be mostly related to consumption of online news. I argued initially that, concerning age, the inexperienced parts of the electorate, the young, will most likely always use the party websites more extensively than their older counterparts. The young have greater need for elementary information than more experienced voters. The findings support this argument: the youngest voters acquire information from party websites to a greater extent than more experienced voters, and this is not explained by general patterns of Internet access and use. Moreover, I did not expect the young to follow the Internet on uncontrolled online communication channels – most importantly online newspapers – to a greater extent when Internet use was controlled for. I found that this was true not only for the online electorate, but also for the electorate at large. The young aged 17–24 did not follow the campaign online to a greater extent than voters aged 25–44. This has implications both from a campaigning and a democratic point of view. Concerning campaigning, parties are able to reach out to the young, interested and undecided voters with their self-presentation. If 13 percent of the electorate visits party websites, most parties would probably consider it somewhat important to maintain a relatively decent Internet campaign strategy. However, if more than one-quarter of the most inexperienced voters visit party websites, the Internet strategy might prove crucial. From a Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

47

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association

democratic point of view, party websites increase the available information about the policy alternatives. Evidence that a major part of the most inexperienced voters access the party websites for information increases the significance of this new party-controlled communication channel. NOTES 1. 2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12. 13.

See Allern (2008) for a study of the Scandinavian parties’ websites. However, during the 2007 Norwegian local elections, all party leaders had their own blog on the largest online newspaper (http://www.vg.no). This tendency for politicians to blog within online newspapers’ platforms might challenge the distinction between partycontrolled and party-uncontrolled communication channels. The same applies to parties and candidates use of YouTube, Facebook, etc. However, I would argue that these are party-controlled communication channels on external platforms. Lusoli (2005), in a study of the Internet as an electoral information source in 24 European countries, makes a similar assumption concerning systems with the possibility to choose between candidates and the incentives to go online and learn about the candidates. However, he finds no connection between systems that offer the possibility to choose between candidates and the share of voters using the Internet as an information source. Age is not equal to electoral experience, but the youngest voters are necessarily inexperienced voters. In a similar way, Bergström (2007) called a recent study of Internet use in Sweden ‘Internetval 2006 – för de redan frälsta’ (‘Internet Election 2006 – For the Already Converted’) to describe how the Internet does not mobilise new groups of voters. For details on the 2005 Norwegian Election Study, see Aardal et al. (2007). For details on the 2001 Norwegian Election Study, see Aardal et al. (2003). For details on coding, contact the author. The question was formulated as ‘conversation or discussions with family or friends’. Age is a continuous variable: number of years above 17. Gender: female = 1, male = 0. Education: primary and high school = 0, university = 1. Occupation is based on the international ISCO standard. In this context we use a variable with six categories (reduced from the original 10). In addition, students are included as a category. The reference category in the analysis is ‘craft workers and machine operators’. See Ganzeboom and Treiman (2003) for a review of the ISCO standard and the relation to EGP, SIOPS and SEI. I have not included national newspapers, regional newspapers, and family and friends in the table, but people’s assessment is mostly related to political interest. Still, age has an effect on discussions and regional papers as the young are more interested in discussing the campaign, while the older segments get more information from regional newspapers; women are more inclined than men to consider family and friends important for information; and the highly educated are more inclined than the less educated to consider the national newspapers important. In addition, the age groups must include a fair amount of respondents who are online every day. Education has a significant bivarate effect when the youngest group is excluded from the analysis.

REFERENCES Aardal, B. & Karlsen, R. 2008. ‘Towards an Integrated and Dynamic Model of Voting’. Paper presented at the 15th NOPSA Conference, Tromsø, Norway, 6–10 August. Aardal, B., Høstmark, M., Lagerstrøm, B. O. & Stavn, G. 2007. Valgundersøkelsen 2005. Dokumentasjon-og tabellrapport. Oslo: SSB. Aardal, B. et al. 2003. Valgundersøkelsen 2001. Dokumentasjon-og tabellrapport. Oslo: SSB. Allern, E. 2008. Window-dressing or Bringing Society (Back) In? External Use of Websites by Scandinavian Party Organizations. Unpublished manuscript.

48

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association Bergström, A. 2007. ‘Internetval 2006 – för de redan frälsta’, in Holmberg, S. & Weibull, L., eds, Det nya Sverige. Trettiosju kapitel om politik, medier och samhälle. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg Press. Bimber, B. & Davis, R. 2003. Campaigning Online: The Internet in US Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blumler, J. G. & Kavanagh, D. 1999. ‘The Third Age of Political Communication: Influences and Features’, Political Communication, 16, 209–30. Boogers, M. & Voerman, G. 2003. ‘Surfing Citizens and Floating Voters: Results of an Online Survey of Visitors to Political Web Sites during the Dutch 2002 General Election’, Information Polity, 8, 17–27. Carlson, T. & Strandberg, K. 2005. ‘The 2004 European Parliament Election on the Web: Finnish Actor Strategies and Voter Responses’, Information Polity, 10, 198–204. Carlson,T. & Strandberg,K. 2008.‘Plus ça change,plus ça reste le même?The Evolution of Finnish Web Campaigning, 1996–2004’, in Strömbäck, J., Ørsten, M. & Aalberg, T., eds, Communicating Politics: Political Communication in the Nordic Countries. Gothenburg: Nordicom. Dahl, R. A. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dulio, D. A. 2004. For Better or Worse? How Political Consultants are Changing Elections in the United States. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Farrell, D. 1996. ‘Campaign Strategies and Tactics’, in LeDuc, L., Niemi, R. G. & Norris, P., eds, Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. London: Sage. Farrell, D. & Webb, P. 2000. ‘Political Parties as Campaign Organizations’, in Dalton, R. J. & Wattenberg, M. P., eds, Parties without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foot, K. A. & Schneider, S. M. 2006. Web Campaigning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ganzeboom, H. & Treiman, D. J. 2003. ‘Three Internationally Standardized Measures for Comparative Research on Occupational Status’, in Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P. & Wolf, C., eds, Advances in Cross-national Comparison: A European Working Book for Demographic and Socio-economic Variables. New York: Kluwer Academic Press. Gaziano, C. & Gaziano, E. 1996. ‘Theories and Methods in Knowledge Gap Research since 1970’, in Salwen, M. B. & Stacks, D. W., eds, An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gibson, R. K. 2004. ‘Web-campaigning from a Global Perspective’, Asia-Pacific Review, 11, 95–126. Gibson, R. K. & MacAllister, I. 2006. ‘Does Cyber-campaigning Win Votes? Online Communication in the 2004 Australian Election’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 16, 243–63. Hansen, K. M. & Kosiara-Pedersen, K. 2009. Cyber-campaigning: The Character, Development and Consequences of Danish Parties’ Electioneering in Cyber-space. Unpublished manuscript. Hestvik, H. 2004. ‘Valgkamp2001.no. Partier, velgere og nye medier. Ny kommunikasjon?’, in Aardal, B., Krogstad, A. & Narud, H. M., eds, I valgkampens hete. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Hindman, M. 2005. ‘The Real Lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the First Digital Campaign’, Perspectives on Politics, 3, 121–8. Hoff, J. 2008. ‘Påvirkes vælgerne af deres politiske internetbrug? Resultater fra en undersøglese af folketingsvalget 2007 på nettet’, Tidsskriftet politik, 5, 50–65. Karlsen, R. 2009. ‘Campaign Communication and the Internet. Party Strategy in the 2005 Norwegian Election Campaign’, Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties, 19, 183–202. Lusoli, W. 2005. ‘A Second-order Medium? The Internet as a Source of Electoral Information in 25 European Countries’, Information Polity, 10, 257–65. Lusoli, W. & Ward, S. 2004. ‘Digital Rank and File: Activists Perceptions and Use of the Internet’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7, 453–70. Lusoli, W. & Ward, S. 2005. ‘Logging On or Switching Off? The Public and the Internet at the 2005 General Election’, in Coleman, S. & Ward, S., eds, Spinning the Web: Online Campaigning during the 2005 General Election. London: Hansard Society. Norris, P. 2000. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communication in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norris, P. 2001. Digital Divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norris, P. 2003. ‘Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, Participation and Party Websites’, Party Politics, 9, 21–45. Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010

49

© 2009 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic Political Science Association Norris, P. & Curtice, J. Forthcoming. ‘Getting the Message Out: A Two-step Model of the Role of the Internet in Campaign Communication Flows during the 2005 British General Election’, Journal of Information Technology and Politics. Oscarsson, H. & Holmberg, S. 2008. Regeringsskifte. Väljarna och Valet 2006. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik. Petersson, O. et al. 2006. Media and Elections in Sweden. Stockholm: SNS. Pew Research Center. 2004. Cable and Internet Loom in Large Fragmented Political News Universe. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center. 2006. Maturing Internet Audiences: Broader than Deep. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Plasser, F. & Plasser, G. 2002. Global Political Campaigning. London: Praeger. Prior, M. 2007. Post-broadcast Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogers, E. 1995. The Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: Free Press. Schmitt-Beck, R. 2007. ‘New Modes of Campaigning’, in Dalton, R. & Klingemann, H. D., eds, Handbook of Political Behavior Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selwyn, N. 2004. ‘Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide’, New Media & Society, 6, 341–62. Shah, D. V., Kwak, N. & Holbert, R. L. 2001. ‘“Connecting” and “Disconnecting” with Civic Life: Patterns of Internet Use and the Production of Social Capital’, Political Communication, 18, 141–62. Strøm, K. 1990. ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 34, 565–98. Tichenor, P., Donohue, G. & Olien, C. 1970. ‘Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159–70. Urwin, D. 1997. ‘The Norwegian Party System from the 1880s to the 1990s’, in Svåsand, L. & Strøm, K., eds, Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Voerman, G. & Boogers, M. 2008. ‘Netherlands: Digital Campaigning in the 2002 and 2003 Parliamentary Elections’, in Ward, S. et al., eds, Making a Difference? Internet Campaigning in Comparative Perspective. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2005. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. London: Sage. Waldahl, R. & Aardal, B. 2004. ‘Velgernes eksponering for valgkampen i mediene’, in Aardal, B., Krogstad, A. & Narud, H. M., eds, I valgkampens hete. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Ward, S., Gibson, R. & Lusoli, W. 2008. ‘UK: Parties and the 2005 Virtual Campaign – Not Quite Normal?’, in Ward, S. et al., Making a Difference? Internet Campaigning in Comparative Perspective. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

50

Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 33 – No. 1, 2010