SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Bezjian-Avery, A., Calder, B., & Iacobucci, D. (1998). New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (4), 2332.
  • Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning Online: The Internet in U. S. Elections. New York : Oxford University Press.
  • Bucy, E. P. (2004). The interactivity paradox: Closer to the news but confused. In E. P.Bucy & J. E.Newhagen (Eds.), Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use (pp. 4772). Mahwah , NJ : Erlbaum.
  • Cornfield, M., Safdar, S., & Seiger, J. (1998). The top 10 things we're tired of seeing on candidate Web sites. Campaigns & Elections, 19 (9), 26.
  • Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in Web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30 (3), 6577.
  • Endres, D., & Warnick, B. (2004). Text-based interactivity in candidate campaign Web sites: A case study from the 2002 elections. Western Journal of Communication, 68 (3), 322342.
  • Farkas, D. K., & Farkas, J. B. (2002). Principles of Web design. New York : Longman.
  • Foot, K. A., & Schneider, S. M. (Eds.) (2002, November 27). Online Campaigning in the 2002 U.S. Electoral Web Sphere. Retrieved April 20, 2005 from http://politicalweb.info/publications/2002WorkingPaper.pdf.
  • Foot, K. A., Schneider, S. M., & Xenos, M. (2003). Online Campaigning in the 2002 U.S. Elections. Working Paper v. 2. (An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Internet Research 3.0 conference, Maastricht , the Netherlands , October, 2002).
  • Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making: An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In R. Y.Hirokawa & M. S.Poole (Eds.), Communication and Group Decision-Making (2nd ed., pp. 179212). Beverly Hills : Sage.
  • Institute for Politics Democracy and the Internet (2002). Online Campaigning 2002: A Primer. Washington D.C. : The George Washington University. Retrieved April 20, 2005 from http://www.ipdi.org/UploadedFiles/onlinecampaigning2002.pdf.
  • Kamarck, E. C. (1999). Campaigning on the Internet in the elections of 1998. In E. C.Kamarck & J. S.Nye, Jr. (Eds.), Democracy.com?: Governance in a Networked World (pp. 99123). Hollis , NH : Hollis Publishing Co.
  • Kaplan, N. (2000). Literacy beyond books; Reading when all the world's a Web. In H.Herman & T.Swiss (Eds.), The World Wide Web and Contemporary Cultural Theory (pp. 207234). New York : Routledge.
  • Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4 (3), 355383.
  • LaGrandeur, K. (2003). Digital images and classical persuasion. In M. E.Hocks & M. R.Kendrick (Eds.), Eloquent Images: Word and Image in the Age of New Media (pp. 117136). Cambridge , MA : The MIT Press.
  • Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1994). The responsive voter –campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89 (2), 309326.
  • Lombard, M., & Snyder-Duch, J. (2001). Interactive advertising and presence: A framework. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1 (2). Retrieved March 5, 2004 from http://www.jiad.org/.
  • Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace Revolution. Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage.
  • McGuire, W. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 233346). Reading , MA : Addison-Wesley.
  • McMillan, S. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. In L.Lievrouw & S.Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of New Media (pp. 163182). Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage.
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approches. Dubuque , IA : William C. Brown Company Publishers.
  • Potter, J. W., & Tomasello, T. K. (2003). Building upon the experimental design in media violence research: The importance of including receiver interpretations. Journal of Communication 53 (2), 315329.
  • Poupolo, S. T. (2001). The Web and U.S. Senate campaigns 2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 44 (12), 20302047.
  • Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P.Hawkins, J. M.Wiemann, & S.Pingree (Eds.), Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes (pp. 110134). Sage Annual Review of Communication Research, Vol. 16. Newbury Park , CA : Sage. Retrieved March 5, 2004, from http://sheizaf.rafaeli.net.
  • Reed, L. (1999). Online campaigning. In D. D.Perlmutter (Ed.), The Manship School Guide to Political Communication (pp. 233240). Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press.
  • Schudson, M. (1978). The ideal of conversation in the study of mass media. Communication Research, 5 (3), 320329.
  • Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50 (4), 111132.
  • Stromer-Galley, J., & Foot, K. A. (2002). Citizen perceptions of online interactivity and implications for political campaign communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8 (1). Retrieved February 7, 2004, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue1/stromerandfoot.html.
  • Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating Web site interactivity: Impresssion formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30 (1), 3059.
  • Teo, H.-H., Oh, L.-B., Liu, C., & Wei, K.-K. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of interactivity in Web user attitude. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58 (3), 281305.
  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York : Cambridge University Press.