This document summarizes a study on the impact of Twitter use on the perceived credibility of 2016 US presidential candidates. It provides background on rhetoric, persuasion, and credibility in politics. Specifically, it discusses Aristotle's modes of persuasion (pathos, logos, ethos) and how they can impact a politician's credibility. The study examined how candidates' tweets may have influenced voters' opinions according to these persuasion modes. It reviewed literature on social media and politics, finding that Twitter has become an important campaign tool. The researcher surveyed 170 subjects on their views of different candidates' credibility, finding that Bernie Sanders was viewed as one of the most credible.

1. Running head: #2016ELECTION 1
#2016Election:
A Quantitative Study on the Impact of Twitter on 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Credibility
Sarah Abel
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

2. #2016ELECTION 2
Abstract
Social media has become a prevalent way for political candidates to communicate directly with
the voters. Previous research has looked at politicians’ use of social media and the impact it has
on the voters, but this study sought to expand the understanding the impact that social media has
on the candidate’s perceived credibility with voters. This study looked at the impact of Twitter
on 2016 presidential candidates’ perceived credibility with voters using Aristotle’s persuasion
and ethos. The researcher surveyed 170 subjects using a modified version of McCroskey’s
Source Credibility Measure Scale for favored candidates. Results revealed that Bernie Sanders
was the most popular candidate among the subjects and was viewed as one of the most credible
candidates among the group. The research suggests trends of regarding the millennial generation
of voters, their social media use, and their political interests.

3. #2016ELECTION 3
#2016Election:
A Quantitative Study on the Impact of Twitter on 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Credibility
Since the introduction of the first social media site in the mid-2000s, the use of social
media has continued to grow. One social media outlet that is becoming one of the most pivotal
websites for politicians is Twitter. Twitter is a social media platform that allows its registered
users to post and read short, up to 140 characters, messages, or tweet; Twitter’s “About” page
(2014) explained, “A Tweet is an expression of a moment or idea. It can contain text, photos,
and videos. Millions of Tweets are shared in real time, every day”(paragraph 2). Now
politicians are tapping into the social media market. Larsson and Kalsnes (2014) best explain
that, “New technology offers great potential for expanding the horizons of political
communication” (p. 654). Politicians can use this technology to reach the voters in ways like
never before.
The 2008 United States presidential election was a pivotal turning point for politicians
everywhere. This election brought forth the use of social media by politicians in ways it had
never been used before. Kushin and Yamamoto (2010) explained that during the 2008 election,
social media was very popular among young adults, who used these sites to obtain campaign
information, as well as share campaign news, and express support for a candidate. Politicians
used social media as part of their campaign to reach young people who tend to use online media
for information over traditional forms of media (Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010). The significance
of the 2008 election and the use of social media is also noted by Larsson and Kalsnes (2014) who
explained, “the apparently successful employment of online features associated with the ‘Web
2.0’ dictum for Web design have provided inspiration also to political parties” (p. 654). Since
the 2008 Presidential Election, there has been an immense growth of politician’s uses of social

4. #2016ELECTION 4
media websites and has caused many to look at how social media messages are crafted and how
politicians use the platforms themselves today.
The rise of politicians’ use of Twitter has generated interest from many. However, past
research looked at how social media affected recent elections and included content analyses of
politicians’ Tweets. There is a lack research on how these Tweets influence the voters’ opinions
of the politicians. This emergence of politicians’ presence on social media has shifted the
political landscape; however, understanding this shift and the affect it has on voters’ opinions
still needs to be explored (Grant, Moon, and Busby Grant, 2010). Even though there is an
increase in politicians’ use of social media, there is little research done on how voters perceive
the messages of political candidates. As noted by Groshek and Al-Rawi (2013), “the individual-
level influence of SNSs” (social network sites) “on citizens are often reported, the actual content
of social media has remained (with some exceptions) a more amorphous and understudied
entity” (p. 564). This study serves that purpose.
In addition, this study sought to understand the relationship between the 2016
Presidential Candidates’ use of Twitter and perceptions of the voting population. A useful lens
to examine voters’ perceptions of candidates’ credibility is Aristotle’s Modes of Persuasion.
This research is timely because there is great interest surrounding the field of politics and social
media, especially leading into the 2016 elections. According to Larsson and Kalsnes (2014),
“Political use of new communication technology continues to raise interest among political
scholars and practitioners alike” (p. 662). Further discussion and analysis of this topic will
provide valuable information into the communication of politicians and voters, especially during
a time of increased communication through technology.

5. #2016ELECTION 5
Review of Literature
To better understand the impact that 2016 presidential candidates’ Twitter use has on the
candidates’ credibility, several topics will be reviewed. The topics include, rhetoric and
persuasion, politicians and credibility, and finally, social media and politics.
Rhetoric and Persuasion
During the fifth century BCE, Greek philosophers started studying rhetoric, the art of
communication strategies (McTavish, 2010). One of the areas of rhetorical discourse that
became of great interest to the Greeks was politics. At the time in Greece, a democratic
government was emerging and public policies and actions, such as whether or not to go to war,
were debated among an assembly of men. Due to this style of government, public speaking and
persuasion became a very important part of political life (Demirdöğen, 2010; McTavish, 2010).
For the first time in history, the key factor in success wasn’t about social standing. Herrick
(2001) explained, “the key factor in personal success and public influence was no longer class
but skill in persuasive speaking” (p. 32). There are three distinguished scholars in ancient
rhetoric— Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian (Foss, 1989; McTavish, 2010). For the purpose of
this study, the focus will be on Aristotle’s study of rhetoric.
Aristotle’s Modes of Persuasion. Aristotle’s study of rhetoric lead to the understanding
that a key part to the art of rhetoric is the ability to understand and implement available modes of
persuasion: pathos, logos, and ethos. After years of research, most researchers “tend to agree
that a message’s power to persuade is influenced by three categories of factors, the
characteristics of the source (ethos), of the message (logos and pathos), and of the audience”
(English, Sweetser, and Ancu, 2011, p. 735).

6. #2016ELECTION 6
Pathos is persuasion that “may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their
emotions” (Aristotle, 2004, p. 4). The audience’s judgment towards a speaker changes
depending on the emotion that the speaker is attempting stir in the audience. For example, a
pleased and friendly emotion is going to produce a dramatically different result than a hostile and
angry emotion (Dima, Teodorescu, and Gîfu, 2014, p. 47). The use of pathos can increase a
politician’s credibility with voters because it makes the politician be viewed as an actual human
instead of just a talking head piece.
Logos is persuasion that “is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a
truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question”
(Aristotle, 2004, p. 4). Logos normally consist of data that support the speaker’s statements and
therefore enhances ethos because it can make the speaker appear to be knowledgeable about the
topic (Dima et al, 2014). This mode of persuasion increases a politician’s credibility with voters
because it gives statements that a politician makes validity.
The last mode of persuasion that Aristotle identifies is ethos. Ethos is persuasion that “is
achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think
him credible” (Aristotle, 2004, p. 4). Aristotle’s term ethos is synonymous with credibility and
has proven to be the most important mode of persuasion for a speaker to utilize (Cooper &
Nothstine, 1996). Ethos are most often used by politicians and have the biggest impact on a
politician’s credibility and therefore is explored in depth separately from the other modes in the
section below.
Politicians and Credibility
Aristotle referred to credibility as the mode of persuasion known as ethos, and argued
that there are three dimensions to credibility: intelligence, character, and good will (Thweatt &

7. #2016ELECTION 7
McCroskey, 1998). Proof that credibility has the biggest impact on an audience was best
demonstrated in the ancient Athens’s trials. During a trial in ancient Athens, each person
represented themselves, instead of lawyers, to a jury; because of this, the portrayal of a person’s
moral character and how that aligned with the jury’s own values of beliefs. The jury would then
make a decision solely on what they had just heard and their perceptions of the individual, not
the individual’s past.
The use of credibility above is much like how credibility works on the Internet today.
Online users are making rapid decisions based on what they see on websites without doing
further research on the topic or person, much like the jurors in ancient Athens (Warnick, 2004).
Marsh (2006) also supported this claim stating, “a speech-derived ethos—ethos purely as a
media construct, divorced from a speaker’s history could sway audiences (p. 339). The way a
speaker conveys his or her credibility influences the overall message they are trying to convey
and whether or not the audience will believe the speaker (Andersen & Clevenger Jr., 1963).
Credibility is one of the most important parts of a politician’s image (Hwang, 2013). In
today’s world, a politician’s credibility is becoming more and more about their overall image. It
is not only about what a politician’s stance is on an issue but it is also becoming more about
connecting with the audience and creating an ideal image of a politician in voters’ minds through
various types of messages (Cooper & Nothstine, 1996). There are several ways that politicians
can gain more credibility by increasing their overall image with voters. One study suggests that
incorporating the contemporary etho of democratic laughter can help increase credibility
(Lombardini, 2013). Aristotle argued that “eutrapelia” or wittiness is on of the eleven virtues of
character in political rhetoric that can then increase credibility. It cultivates a feeling of

8. #2016ELECTION 8
friendship between a voter and candidate if the politician seems able to make and take a joke
(Lombardini, 2013).
In a study done by Thweatt and McCroskey (1998), using the same scale that was used
for the present study, teachers were perceived more credible by their students if they
demonstrated immediacy, regardless of the teacher’s behavioral history. Immediacy is the ability
to make someone or something seem important. Thweatt and McCroskey’s work can also be
applied to politicians. If politicians utilize immediacy in their messages, they are than able to
gain credibility with the voters.
Lastly, Lee and Oh (2012) discovered that voters were more receptive to candidates’
social media posts when the messages became more personalized, "although the gist of the
messages was identical, when they were presented in reference to the candidate’s personal
experiences, subjects became more attentive to the messages and processed them more
thoroughly” (p .940). Therefore, a more personalized message creates a better overall character,
leading to a more credible candidate. As proven by the studies above, different social media
strategies used by politicians could either help or hinder their credibility with voters.
Social Media and Politics
Politicians’ use of media and technology has evolved over time. Williamson (2009)
argued, “new media form has been able to disrupt and transform politics” (p. 515). The
introduction of television in the 1960s has arguably transformed the way politicians
communicated the most, in comparison to any other form of technology (Williamson, 2009).
However, with the introduction of digital media, such as Facebook and Twitter, there has been a
weakening in power for the traditional media outlets such as newspapers, television, and radio.

9. #2016ELECTION 9
With the rapid rise of social media sites, many politicians joined the trend and tried social
media out for themselves. Lassen and Brown (2011) argued, “such waves of technological
adoption are comparatively rare in Congressional history” (p. 419). While many politicians are
more than happy to join the social media movement, others are much more reluctant.
Williamson (2009) suggested that a possible reason that some politicians are reluctant is because
“there is a tangible shift in the balance of power as voters, single-issue groups and other
interested external parties are able to create new channels of engagement quickly and cheaply,
providing considerable reach and demonstrably influencing public and political opinion” (p.
514). For some politicians, the threat of a shifting balance of power is something that is all too
risky (Williamson, 2009) because the voters are able to hold politicians much more accountable
with the use of social media than traditional kinds of media.
In the past, voters looked to politicians to gain knowledge on issues and topics that were
happening and what they should or should not be concerned about, and therefore, the voters’
own concerns were not necessarily being addressed (Garramore, Harris, & Anderson, 1986).
With the emergence of social media and the popularity it has continued to gain, voters are
starting to gain a louder voice. As voters push for a more even balance of power and open line
of communication with their representatives, there have been campaigns to push politicians to
join social media. For example, TweetCongress “is a grass-roots web-based campaign with the
goal of promoting transparency in government by encouraging representatives in Congress to use
Twitter” (Golbeck, Grimes, & Rogers, 2010, p. 1613). With the push for more transparency
from the elected officials, Twitter has become a very important tool for politicians.
Importance of Twitter. For this specific study, Twitter was chosen as the social media
type because it has emerged as one of the more popular social media sites among politicians and

10. #2016ELECTION 10
Twitter users are more likely to read politicians messages compared to other social media sites’
users as proven in several different studies. One study suggests that Twitter plays a more
“important and central role for politicians and citizens to communicate about, to, and with one
another during election” than Facebook has (Groshek & Al-Rawi, 2013, p. 565). Twitter also
proved to be much more popular among politicians than Facebook, creating a more favorable
social media site to study politicians’ messages in social media compared to politicians’
messages in traditional media, such as newspapers (Lee & Shin, 2014 ). According to Van Dijck
(2013), Twitter has become an indispensable tool because “the medium allows them to control
their messages—a big advantage over mainstream media, where they are dependent on
journalists framing” (p. 75). Smith (2011) discovered that among social media users as a whole,
Twitter users showed more interest in reading comments made by public figures, such as
politicians than any other users. In fact, in a 2010 ranking by Wikipedia for the nine notable uses
for Twitter, campaigning, and protests and politics were both listed in the top nine (Van Dijck,
2013).
Since social media is not going away anytime soon, it is becoming more and more
necessary for politicians to take to social media and understand how to send messages to their
voters and keeping the flow of communication between politicians and voters open. As Dima,
Teodrescu, and Gîfu (2014) explain, technology continues to advance and evolve daily and
politicians need to master new technology in order to keep stronger relationships with voters. In
order to do this, politicians must look to social media to maintain and increase credibility with
voters. Kushin and Yamamoto (2010) argued that social media was too new during the 2006 and
2008 election cycles for there to social media to have significant impact on the elections. As
they explain, “It took multiple election cycles for the public to adopt the Internet as a political

11. #2016ELECTION 11
information source. The same pattern of growth may be observed for social media” (p. 626).
Eight years and four election cycles later has provided ample time for the public to adopt social
media as a political information source.
When it comes to social media, there are certain strategies that are better than others to
use on social media in order to become more credible and likeable with voters. Cooper and
Nothstine (1996) explained that the best kind of strategy to use when it comes to any kind of
media is to build upon natural characteristics through exploitation and calculation instead of
leaving anything to chance. In the digital era, examining both the perceived credibility of the
politician as well as the credibility of the messages the voters receive are becoming increasingly
important to understand (Metzger & Flanagin, 2013). The current study aims to understand
credibility and political use of social media. Little has been explored regarding use of Twitter
and voters’ perceived credibility and this study will contribute to the further understanding of
both social media and political communication.
Research Questions
Communication scholars have consistently researched politicians’ use of persuasions and
recently, scholars have started to research politicians on Twitter, but these two topics have never
been combined. Technology is always changing and it provides an easy way for politicians to
stay connected with voters; therefore, understanding how to use it correctly and effectively is
critical. The following research questions are forwarded to gain a better understanding of how
politicians’ utilization of persuasion on Twitter impacts the voter’s perceived credibility of the
politician.

12. #2016ELECTION 12
In order to gain a better understanding of the subjects’ political views, the first research
question is posed to achieve a better understanding of who the voters’ favor in the 2016
Presidential Election:
RQ1: As of November 2015, which presidential candidates emerged as favorites among
voters?
The second research question attempts to understand the importance of social media in
subjects’ lives as well as their expectations for the politicians’ use of social media:
RQ2a: How prevalent is social media use among voters?
RQ2b: How important do voters perceive candidates’ social media use?
The third and fourth research questions seek to find differences among the candidates and
the credibility scores they receive from the subjects:
RQ3: How credible do voters perceive candidates based on candidates’ Twitter use?
RQ4: Is there a difference in credibility scores among top candidates’ Twitter use?
The final research question sought to see if identified sex has an impact on how a subject
would report a credibility score for a candidate.
RQ5: Is there a credibility difference for the top three picks according to sex of voters?
Method
The present study was conducted using the social scientific paradigm of communication
research. This paradigm focuses mainly on “reality as external to the individual; social
phenomena are objective facts that occur independent of the individual” (Putnam, 1982, p.193).
A survey was designed and used for the current study. The purpose of a survey is to produce
data from a sample that can then be used to generalize about a much larger population (Keyton,
2011). The results from this survey could be generalized in order to make conclusions about a

13. #2016ELECTION 13
larger population. These generalizations may be useful to understand are needed regarding
social media users who are also voters.
Subjects
A total of 179 subjects started the survey; however, 170 surveys were completed and only
69 subjects completed one or more of the Source Credibility Measures. Subjects for the study
had to be at least 18 years of age, who are politically engaged and active on Twitter. There were
121 (70.8%) females and 49 (28.7%) males ranging from ages 18-81 that completed the survey.
The average age of subjects was 22.9. Subjects were also asked to report their political party
affiliation, and 89 (52.4%) subjects reported as Democrats, 41 (24.1%) subjects reported as
Republicans, 2 (1.2%) subjects reported as libertarians, and 38 (22.4%) subjects reported as
independents or not identifying with any party. The majority of subjects were recruited by email
solicitation through random sampling generated from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Information Technology Department and UW-L professors. In addition, snowballing and the
researcher’s personal networks from Facebook were used to recruit additional subjects.
Measurement
Subjects completed a survey that consisted of six sections. The first section included
demographic information that contained age, sex, ethnicity, and educational level questions. The
second section measured the subject’s views and use of social media using a 5-point Likert type
scale. The third section consisted of questions relating to the subjects political views. The fourth
section asked the subject to rank their top three candidates for the 2016 election. The fifth
section consisted of McCroskey’s Source Credibility Measure, which measured the perceived
credibility of a subject’s top three candidates based on the candidates’ Tweets, the revision of
this instrument is described below. The last section of the survey consisted of qualitative

14. #2016ELECTION 14
questions to better understand how the subjects view the politicians. While, the qualitative
section was not used to answer research questions, it was used to further explain answers in the
Discussion section.
Source Credibility Measure. McCroskey’s Source Credibility Measure helps to
measure the three dimensions of ethos/credibility, competence, goodwill, and trustworthiness of
political or public figures (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). The scale has been used by McCroskey
and Teven to examine teachers’ credibility among students and political figures where three
political figures, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Newt Gingrich, were selected and
undergraduate college students answered questions on their credibility (McCroskey & Teven,
1999). The scale used an 18 question Likert-type scale and divided into three sections to find
competence, goodwill, and trustworthiness scores. For the current study, 13 out of the 18
questions were selected due to the fact that the researcher was looking for overall credibility.
The scale results ranged from 24.00 to 96.00, with higher scores indicating more credibility. The
original scale had an alpha reliability range between .80-.94. The modified scale used in this
study had an alpha of .684, which is lower than the original scale. See Appendix to review a
complete copy of the survey.
Procedures
Upon IRB approval, the survey was created and distributed through Qualtrics. The
survey was sent out as a link to 500 randomly selected University of Wisconsin- La Crosse
students provided by the University of Wisconsin- La Crosse Information Technology
department. Additionally, the survey was also available to the researcher’s Facebook friends, as
well as Facebook friends’ friends. The survey was posted as a status and asked for friends who
wanted to participate to click the link and then share it with their own Facebook friends. The

15. #2016ELECTION 15
researcher also contacted Political Science department’s professors and the CST 190 professor to
share the survey with their students. The subjects were notified that their participation was
voluntary, and that subjects would remain anonymous. The students in CST 190 received extra
credit as an incentive. Subjects completed their surveys through Qualtrics. The researcher then
moved the data to SPSS 23.0 for analysis.
Data Analysis
The overall goal of this research was to understand the impact candidates’ Twitter use
could have on their perceived credibility. Therefore, the data was statistically analyzed through
the software program, IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0. Research Questions One and Two were
analyzed through descriptive statistics. Keyton (2011) defined descriptive data as “those
numbers that supply information about the sample or those that supply information about
variables. They simply describe what is found” (p.189). Research Questions Three and Four
were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA test, which is a “procedure for testing hypotheses about
group means by partitioning variance” (Brown, 2005, p. 90). Research Question Five was
analyzed through an independent sample t-test, which according to Keyton (2011), is used to
determine if there is a significant difference between two population means.
Results
After collecting and analyzing data, results were generated to answer the research
questions. Data for demographic information, political views, social media use, and candidates’
preference were used through all 170 surveys. Results for credibility questions included only the
69 responses of those who completed one or more of the modified Source Credibility Scales.
The results for all of the research questions are below.

16. #2016ELECTION 16
ResearchQuestion 1
Research Question One sought to find what out which 2016 presidential candidates
emerged as favorites among voters. Results of the descriptive statistic by frequency are
presented in Table 1 and presented in the order from most frequently selected as the most
favored candidate to least frequently selected as the most favored candidate. Results showed that
Bernie Sanders was the most frequently selected, who was selected 73 (42.9%) times, followed
by Hillary Clinton, who was selected 40 (23.5%) times, and Ben Carson, who was selected 15
times (8.8%).

17. #2016ELECTION 17
Table 1
Frequency of Candidates Selected As The Most Favored Candidate
Candidate Frequency Percent
Bernie Sanders 73 42.9
Hillary Clinton 40 23.5
Ben Carson 15 8.8
Donald Trump 10 5.9
Marco Rubio 8 4.7
Jeb Bush 7 4.1
Carly Fiorina 4 2.4
Ted Cruz 2 1.2
John Kasich 2 1.2
Martin O’Malley 2 1.2
Rand Paul 2 1.2
Chris Christie 1 .6
Mike Huckabee 1 .6
Rick Santorum 1 .6
Total 168 98.8
Missing 2 1.2
Total 170 100

18. #2016ELECTION 18
ResearchQuestion 2
Research Question Two sought to understand how prevalent social media use is among
voters as well as how important they perceived politicians’ social media use. The researcher
again used descriptive statistics to compare age groups and importance of social media. No
exact scale measurement was used so no inferential statistical data could lead to a definitive
conclusion. However, through observations by the researcher and using cross-tabulations on
SPSS, there was a significant descriptive increase in emphasis put on the importance of social
media in the both the subjects’ daily life as well as politicians’ use of social media in the 24 and
under age group when compared to the over 24 age group.
ResearchQuestion 3
Research Question Three asked if there was a significant difference between the
candidates’ perceived credibility. For this research question, an ANOVA test was performed by
comparing the candidates who received a top three ranking by the subjects and the credibility
scores they received. The ANOVA test revealed that there was a significant difference among
perceived credibility of all candidates who were ranked in the top three by any subject (F=3.271,
p<. 05). The Tukey post-hoc analysis revealed that the greatest difference in credibility scores
were between Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.
There was a wide range of credibility scores given to the candidates. For the top ranked
candidates, credibility scores ranged from a minimum of 24.00 to 96.00; for second ranked
candidates, credibility scores ranged from 39.00 to 86.00; and for third ranked candidates,
credibility scores ranged from 44.00 to 87.00. Additionally, the research took all credibility
scores the candidates received and found their overall average credibility score, which is shown
in Table 2.

19. #2016ELECTION 19
Table 2
Candidates’ Overall Average Credibility Score
Candidate Mean N Std. Deviation
Hillary Clinton 73.2222 27 16.38088
Bernie Sanders 78.8333 24 13.98654
Donald Trump 66.0000 4 19.42507
Marco Rubio 54.7500 4 17.55705
Martin O’Malley 50.3333 3 23.24507
Jeb Bush 84.0000 2 5.65685
Ben Carson 67.0000 2 19.79899
Carly Fiorina 57.0000 1 -
Lindsey Graham 65.0000 1 -
John Kasich 87.0000 1 -
Total Average 72.6667 69 17.04118
ResearchQuestion 4
Research Question Four asked if there was a difference in credibility scores among top
candidates. An ANOVA test revealed that there was no significant difference among the top
candidates (F= .057, p>.05).
ResearchQuestion 5
Research Question Five sought to find if there were any significant differences between
identified sex among voters and reported credibility scores. A t-test was performed to find this
result. The t-test revealed that there were no significant differences between male and female’s
perceptions of credibility with the first pick (t=. 330, p>.05), second pick (t= -1.233, p>.05), or

20. #2016ELECTION 20
third pick (t=-.242, p>.05). However, as demonstrated on Table 3, in a table of means, there is a
noticeable difference between how men and females report credibility.
Table 3
Table of Means Regarding Identified Sex and Reported Credibility
Identified Sex N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
1st Pick Credibility Male 12 76.5000 20.02498 5.78072
Female 32 78.5938 14.80161 2.61658
2nd Pick Credibility Male 7 57.0000 14.47987 5.47288
Female 10 65.2000 11.95175 3.77948
3rd Pick Credibility Male 2 64.0000 5.65685 4.00000
Female 4 66.2500 16.76057 8.38028
Discussion
The objective of this study was to determine if there was an impact on candidates’ use of
Twitter and voters perceived credibility of the candidates through the application of Aristotle’s
Modes of Persuasion theory, specifically ethos. Several conclusions can be made using the
results of the survey.
Research Question One looked to find what out which 2016 presidential candidates
emerged as favorites among voters. The researcher found from descriptive frequencies that the
most favored candidate selected was Bernie Sanders with 73 top picks. Bernie Sanders received
one of the higher average credibility scores with a 78.83 average, falling behind John Kasich and
Jeb Bush, but who each only received two or less credibility scores.
When subjects who ranked Bernie Sanders number one and also followed him on Twitter
were asked why they liked this candidate, many common themes emerged. Subjects were asked

21. #2016ELECTION 21
to note candidates’ specific tweets that they liked and comment on why they liked those tweets.
Common themes for Bernie Sanders included statements such as “He is by far the most
trustworthy candidate to me,” “He says what he means and he means what he says,” and “He is
honest and open and actually cares for once.” These quotes support the high credibility score that
Bernie Sanders received. The tweets that were noted by the subjects were relatively impersonal
messages, but they were blunt facts that were straight to the point such as, “If you can’t afford to
take care of your veterans, then don’t go to war” and “If we could bail out Wall Street, we can
make sure that every American can go to college without going into debt.” These tweets support
the statements that the subjects made about Bernie Sanders. However, they also go against Lee
and Oh’s (2012) study, which found personal messages were more important to voters stating,
"although the gist of the messages was identical, when they were presented in reference to the
candidate’s personal experiences, subjects became more attentive to the messages and processed
them more thoroughly” (p. 940). This could be because as the subjects explained, they like that
Bernie Sanders is straight to the point and is telling people exactly what they need to know
which is what his impersonal messages do.
Research Question Two A sought to understand how prevalent social media is in the
subjects’ lives as well as their opinions on politicians’ use of social media. No exact scale was
used however and therefore generalizations cannot be made about the general population, but the
findings did support findings from previous researchers. For example, the majority of the
subjects reported that they checked social media often or all of the time on a daily basis. The
subjects also reported they were likely or very likely to get their news from social media outlets
over traditional news outlets such as TV, radio or newspapers. This result counters the findings
of Kushin and Yamamoto (2010), who found that “Attention to social media for campaign

22. #2016ELECTION 22
information was not significantly associated with political self-efficacy and situational political
involvement” (p. 622). There are several reasons that these results could have differed. First, a
complete measure was not used in the current study so any conclusions are tentative. Second,
Kushin and Yamamoto conducted their study revolving around the 2006 and 2008 elections; at a
time where social media was much more new and likely not as prevalent as it is today.
Research Question Two B sought to understand how the subjects perceive politicians’ use
of social media. When subjects were asked how important they viewed a politician’s presence
on social media, 92 of the 170 (54.12%) subjects reported that it was somewhat important that
politicians were on social media. This also counters Kushin and Yamamoto’s (2010) previous
findings, however as Grant, Moon, and Bushby Grant (2010) explained, the emergence of
politicians’ presence on social media has shifted the political landscape. This emergence
happened after the 2008 election where social media had never been used in ways the Obama
campaign had used it. Now that it has been eight years since the 2008 election, it is
understandable that there would be significant increase in popularity of social media and
politicians’ presence on social media.
Research Question Three sought to understand how credible voters perceived candidates
based on the candidates’ Twitter use. Candidates received a wide range of credibility scores,
which was unanticipated. The number one ranked candidates had scores ranging from 24.00 to
96.00. It had been assumed that the number one ranked candidates would receive higher
credibility scores than the second or third ranked candidates, but that was not always true. One
reason that the most favored candidates received lower than expected scores is explained by
Warnick (2004), who found that “users often do not tend to make credibility judgments in the
way they say they do. Instead they tend to rely on appearances” (p. 257). Therefore, subjects

23. #2016ELECTION 23
might favor a candidate, but do not find the candidate as credible as they claim they do. This
could be for a number of reasons, they might like the candidate because others told them they
should, they find the candidate more favorable because of what they learned through mainstream
media, or they might find the candidate favorable because popularity among friends.
Research Question Three also found significant difference in credibility scores between
Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, as well as Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio. This can be
explained by the fact that Marco Rubio and Martin O’Malley received the lowest credibility
scores from the subjects while Bernie Sanders had one of the highest credibility scores. Bernie
Sanders was also selected much more frequently then both Marco Rubio and Martin O’Malley,
which is understandable because Bernie Sanders is the most favored candidate.
Research Question Four sought to find if there was any significance between top ranked
candidates’ credibility scores. The ANOVA test revealed that there was no significance among
top candidates. This was to be expected because top ranked candidates should have close
average credibility scores due to the fact that they are subjects most favored candidates.
However, there was a wide range of credibility scores among the top ranked candidates, the
scores ranged from 24.00 to 96.00, which as explained as previously, could be attributed to the
idea that subjects might favor a candidate, but do not find the candidate as credible as they claim
they do.
Research Question Five sought to find if there were any significant differences between
identified sex among voters and reported credibility scores. Although the t-test found that there
was no significance, there was a noticeable difference between how males and females gave their
top three candidates credibility scores. For each rank (first, second and third), females
consistently gave the candidates a higher credibility score compared to men. It is likely that

24. #2016ELECTION 24
there would have been a reported significant difference had there been a more balanced number
between males and females and more subjects had completed the credibility scores section of the
survey. The generalization can be made that females are more likely to give a higher credibility
score and therefore trust candidates more than males potentially do.
In addition to answering the research questions presented in this study, several other
interesting findings emerged. The average age of the subjects was 22.9 with 152 out of 170
(89%) of the subjects between 18-24 years old. This group falls into the millennial generation by
definition, an important fact to note because the millennial generation passed the baby boomers
number in 2015, making the millennial generation the largest living population in the US. The
millennial generation is now the largest voting population in the country (Fry, 2015). A few
things have been learned about this millennial generation in this research. The subjects in this
survey chose Bernie Sanders as their most favored candidate 73 times, which is 33 more than the
next closet picked candidate. Generally Bernie Sanders appears to be the most favored candidate
among the millennial generation. Another interesting discovery about this generation is that
more of them are choosing not to align with any party and instead choose to identify themselves
as an independent, with 34 of the 152 (22.35%) age group identifying as independents. This
population will be the most powerful generation in the 2016, should they chose to vote. From
this research, it can be predicted that this population won’t follow a specific trend like
generations before them. This generation will be less likely to vote certain party line, when
compared to previous generations. In addition, should Bernie Sanders be the Democratic
nominee, it can be assumed that a large number of this generation will vote for him.

25. #2016ELECTION 25
Limitations
The current study had several limitations, including the size and range of the subject
population. Although 500 plus surveys were sent out, only 170 were completed, and only 69
completed the credibility measure. Additionally, college students completed the majority of the
surveys. Due to this fact, the sample surveyed is not large enough to be able to make a
generalization about a larger population.
A second limitation for the current study was that the modified scale had a low reliability
score, and may have been due to researcher user. The entire scale should have been used but was
not. Additionally, a more detailed second scale should have been used to gauge the importance
of social media to the subjects.
Future Research
This research suggests opportunities for related research in the future. While the current
study focuses mainly on Twitter, there are several other social mediums that could be explored.
Facebook could have been a better social medium to use because Facebook has more daily users.
Another social media site to use in the future would be SnapChat. It is a newer form of social
media, but several politicians have started to use it in hopes of better connecting with the voters.
Additionally, researchers could look into the candidates’ Tweets and do a content analysis on the
candidates’ attempts to convey credibility to the voters.
In conclusion, while there may still be unanswered questions regarding politicians and
social media, the current study attempted to establish that the 2016 presidential candidates’
Twitter use has some impact on how voters perceive the candidates’ credibility. The purpose of
this study sought to understand the relationship between the 2016 Presidential Candidates’ use of
Twitter and perceptions of the voting population. Although there were not significant findings in

26. #2016ELECTION 26
why or how voters rank and score their top candidates’ in credibility, an unexpected discovery
was made regarding the millennial generation. Through this study, valuable information was
discovered regarding the largest voting population for the 2016 election. Social media has
continued to grow in the short time it has been around, expanding into the realm of politics.
Although it can not be predicted what the next social media trend will be, it can be assumed that
social media will continue to have lasting impact on how voters view the candidates.

27. #2016ELECTION 27
References
Andersen, K & Clevenger Jr., T. (1963). A summary of experimental research in ethos. Speech
Monographs, 30, 59-78.
Aristotle. (2004). "Book 1, Part 2." Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. 4-5.Web. Retrieved
October 14, 2015.
Brown, A. M. (2005). A new software for carrying out one-way ANOVA post hoc tests.
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 79(1), 89-95.
Cooper, M., & Nothstine, W. (1996). Credibility and image management. In Power Persuasion:
Moving an ancient art into the media age (2nd ed., pp. 98-125). Greenwood, Ind:
Educational Video Group.
Demirdöğen, Ü. D. (2010). The roots of research in (political) persuasion: Ethos, pathos, logos
and the Yale studies of persuasive communications. International Journal of Social
Inquiry, 3(1), 189-201.
Dima, I., Teodorescu, M., & Gîfu, D. (2014). New communication approaches vs. traditional
communication. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 31, 46-55.
Retrieved October 14, 2015.
English, K., Sweetser, K., & Ancu, M. (2011). YouTube-ification of political talk: An
examination of persuasion appeals in viral video. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 733-
748.
Foss, S. (1989). Neo-Aristotelian Criticism. In Rhetorical criticism: Exploration & practice (pp.
71-92). Prospect Heights, IL.: Waveland Press.

28. #2016ELECTION 28
Fry, R. (2015, January 16). This year, Millennials will overtake Baby Boomers. Retrieved
November 30, 2015, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/16/this-year-
millennials-will-overtake-baby-boomers/
Garramone, G., Harris, A., & Anderson, R. (1986). Uses of political computer bulletin boards.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 325-339.
Grant, W., Moon, B., & Busby Grant, J. (2010). Digital dialogue? Australian politicians' use of
the social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45, 579-604.
Golbeck, J., Grimes, J., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1612–1621.
Groshek, J., & Al-Rawi, A. (2013). Public sentiment and critical framing in social media content
during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 563-
576.
Herrick, J. (2001). The Origins and early history of rhetoric. In The history and theory of
rhetoric: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 31-47). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hwang, S. (2013). The effect of Twitter use on politicians’ credibility and attitudes toward
politicians. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25, 246-258.
doi:10.1080/1062726X.2013.788445
Keyton, J. (2011) Communication research: Asking questions, finding answers (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Kushin, M. J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students' use of
online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication
and Society, 13, 608-630.

29. #2016ELECTION 29
Larsson, A. O., & Kalsnes, B. (2014). 'Of course we are on Facebook': Use and non-use of social
media among Swedish and Norwegian politicians. European Journal of Communication,
29, 653-667.
Lassen, D. S., & Brown, A. R. (2011). Twitter: The electoral connection. Social Science
Computer Review, 29, 419-436. doi:10.1177/0894439310382749
Lee, E.J., & Shin, S. (2014 ). When the medium is the message: How transportability moderates
the effects of politicians' Twitter communication. Communication Research, 41(8), 1088-
1110.
Lee, E. J., & Oh, S. Y. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians'
personalized tweets affect the public's reactions. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 932-
949.
Lombardini, J. (2013). Civic laughter: Aristotle and the political virtue of humor. Political
Theory, 4, 203-230.
Marsh, C. (2006). Aristotelian ethos and the new orality: Implications for media literacy and
media ethics. Journal of Mass media Ethics, 21(4), 338-352.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its
measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90-130.
McTavish, J. (2010). The ethos of the practice of rhetoric. Philippiniana Sacra, 45(133), 66-78.
Metzger, M., & Flanagin, A. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments:
The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210-220.
Putnam, L. L. (1982). Paradigms for organizational communication research: An overview and
synthesis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46 (2), 192-206.

30. #2016ELECTION 30
Smith, A. (2011, November 14). Why Americans use social media. Retrieved November 30,
2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/15/why-americans-use-social-media/
Thweatt, K., & McCroskey, J. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on
teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348-358.
Twitter. (2014). The Story of a Tweet. (Twitter, Inc.) Retrieved December 12, 2014, from
Twitter: https://about.twitter.com/what-is-twitter/story-of-a-tweet
Van Dijck, J. (2013). Twitter and the paradox of following and trending. In The culture of
connectivity: A critical history of social media (pp. 68-88). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Warnick, B. (2004). Online ethos: Source credibility in an "authorless" environment. American
Behavioral Scientist, 48, 256-265. doi:10.1177/0002764204267273
Williamson, A. (2009). The effect of digital media on mps' communication with constituents.
Parliamentary Affairs, 62, 514-527.

31. #2016ELECTION 31
Appendix
Survey
Directions: Please answer the following questions by marking the correct answer or entering
your answer in the empty space provided.
1) What is your age?
____________
2) What is your identified gender?
A) Male B) Female C) Other, please specify:______ D) Prefer not to answer
3) What is your ethnicity?
A) Black/African American B) White/Caucasian C) Hispanic
D) Asian/Pacific Islander E) Native American F) Other
G) Prefer not to answer
4) Size of hometown?
A) 0-9,999 B) 10,000 -19,999 C) 20,000-29,999 D) 30,000-39,999
E) 40,000-49,999 F) 50,000-59,999 G) 60,000- 69,999 H) 70,000 and up
5) What is the highest level of education you have completed?
A) Less than High School B) High School/GED C) Some College
D) 4-year College Degree E) Masters Degree F) Doctoral Degree (incl. JD, MD, etc)
6) What is your current yearly salary?
A) 0-9,999 B) 10,000 -19,999 C) 20,000-29,999 D) 30,000-39,999
E) 40,000-49,999 F) 50,000-59,999 G) 60,000- 69,999 H) 70,000-79,999
I) 80,000-89,999 J)90,000-99,999 K) 100,000 and up L) Prefer not to answer
7) How often do you practice your right to vote?
Never 1 2 3 4 5 As often as possible
8) How many politicians do you follow on Twitter?
A) 0-5 B) 5-10 C) 10-15 D) 15-20 E) 20+
9) Which political party do you identify with
A) Democratic Party B) Republic Party C) Libertarian Party D) Green Party
E) Constitution Party F) Independent G) Other, please specify:__________
H) Do not identify with any party
10) Which political party do your parents identify?
A) Democratic Party B) Republic Party C) Libertarian Party D) Green Party
E) Constitution Party F) Independent G) Other, please specify:__________
H) Do not identify with any party

32. #2016ELECTION 32
11) How many of the 2016 Presidential Candidates do you follow on Twitter?
____________
12) Please rank your top three 2016 declared candidates?
Jeb Bush
Ben Carson
Lincoln Chafee
Chris Christie
Hillary Clinton
Ted Cruz
Carly Fiorina
Jim Gilmore
Lindsey Graham
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
John Kasich
Lawrence Lessig
Martin O'Malley
George Pataki
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Bernie Sanders
Rick Santorum
Jill Stein
Donald Trump
Jim Webb
13) Do you follow these top three favored candidates on Twitter?
Yes No
Directions: Please use your number one ranked candidate’s Twitter account to answer the
following questions. On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the candidate based on the
candidate’s past tweets. Be sure to complete the measure with only your number one ranked
candidate in mind.
1) Do you follow the candidate on Twitter?
A) Yes B) No
2) Does the candidate have a Twitter account?
A) Yes B) No

33. #2016ELECTION 33
Based on the candidates tweets, I feel that the candidate is:
1) Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unintelligent
2) Untrained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trained
3) Cares about me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't care about me
4) Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonest
5) Has my interests at heart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't have my interests at heart
6) Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustworthy
7) Inexpert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Expert
8) Self-centered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not self-centered
9) Concerned with me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not concerned with me
10) Honorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonorable
11) Informed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninformed
12) Moral 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Immoral
13) Incompetent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competent
Directions: Keeping in mind your number one ranked candidate, please answer the questions
below.
1) In the box below please give two examples of your Tweets from your most favorable
candidate’s Twitter.
2) What do these Tweets tell you about the candidate?
3) What do you like about this candidate?
Directions: Please use your second ranked candidate’s Twitter account to answer the
following questions. On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the candidate based on
the candidate’s past tweets. Be sure to complete the measure with only your second ranked
candidate in mind.

34. #2016ELECTION 34
1) Do you follow the candidate on Twitter?
A) Yes B) No
2) Does the candidate have a Twitter account?
A) Yes B) No
Based on the candidates tweets, I feel that the candidate is:
1) Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unintelligent
2) Untrained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trained
3) Cares about me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't care about me
4) Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonest
5) Has my interests at heart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't have my interests at heart
6) Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustworthy
7) Inexpert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Expert
8) Self-centered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not self-centered
9) Concerned with me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not concerned with me
10) Honorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonorable
11) Informed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninformed
12) Moral 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Immoral
13) Incompetent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competent
Directions: Keeping in mind your second ranked candidate, please answer the questions below.
1) In the box below please give two examples of your Tweets from your most favorable
candidate’s Twitter.
2) What do these Tweets tell you about the candidate?
3) What do you like about this candidate?

35. #2016ELECTION 35
Directions: Please use your third ranked candidate’s Twitter account to answer the following
questions. On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the candidate based on the
candidate’s past tweets. Be sure to complete the measure with only your third ranked candidate
in mind.
1) Do you follow the candidate on Twitter?
A) Yes B) No
2) Does the candidate have a Twitter account?
A) Yes B) No
Based on the candidates tweets, I feel that the candidate is:
1) Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unintelligent
2) Untrained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trained
3) Cares about me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't care about me
4) Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonest
5) Has my interests at heart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't have my interests at heart
6) Untrustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trustworthy
7) Inexpert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Expert
8) Self-centered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not self-centered
9) Concerned with me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not concerned with me
10) Honorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dishonorable
11) Informed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninformed
12) Moral 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Immoral
13) Incompetent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competent
Directions: Keeping in mind your third ranked candidate, please answer the questions below.

36. #2016ELECTION 36
1) In the box below please give two examples of your Tweets from your most favorable
candidate’s Twitter.
2) What do these Tweets tell you about the candidate?
3) What do you like about this candidate?
Directions: Please answer the following questions.
1) How important do you find a politician’s social media presence to be?
Not important at all 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely important
2) How often do you check social media a day?
Rarely 1 2 3 4 5 Very often
3) How likely are you to get your news from social media outlet as opposed to a traditional news
source like newspaper, radio, or TV?
Not likely at all 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely likely