Advertisement

Same but different: A typology of Voting Advice Application users in first- and second-order elections

  • Jasper van de Pol
  • Naomi Kamoen
  • André Krouwel
  • Claes de Vreese
  • Bregje Holleman
Original Article

Abstract

Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) fulfill different needs for different citizens. In national elections, the majority of users can be characterized as politically sophisticated citizens who use VAAs for entertainment purposes and confirmation of their party preference, but a significant minority uses VAAs to learn about politics and make an informed vote choice. VAAs might, however, play a different role in second-order elections, since in these elections campaign dynamics and information supply are very different. In the current research, we applied latent class analysis on user data from a widely used Dutch VAA (Kieskompas) for a supranational and several subnational elections in the Netherlands, to test if an extant typology of VAA users for national elections could be replicated. We find that the typology can be replicated for most of these elections, but also that the relative size of the groups of users differs across elections; in all second-order elections except for the provincial elections, more doubters and seekers are found relative to national elections. This suggests that VAAs are likely to have stronger mobilizing potential in these second-order elections.

Keywords

Voting Advice Applications User typology Second-order elections Digital divide Latent class analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) under Grant number 321-89-003.

References

  1. Alvarez, R.M., I. Levin, P. Mair, and A.H. Trechsel. 2014. Party Preferences in the Digital Age: The Impact of Voting Advice Applications. Party Politics 20 (2): 227–236.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068813519960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bimber, B., M. Cantijoch Cunill, L. Copeland, and R. Gibson. 2014. Digital Media and Political Participation: The Moderating Role of Political Interest Across Acts and Over Time. Social Science Computer Review 33 (1): 21–42.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314526559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandtzæg, P.B. 2010. Towards a Unified Media-User Typology (MUT): A Meta-analysis and Review of the Research Literature on Media-User Typologies. Computers in Human Behavior 26 (5): 940–956.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Vreese, C.H., and H.A. Semetko. 2004. News Matters: Influences on the Vote in the Danish 2000 Euro Referendum Campaign. European Journal of Political Research 43 (5): 699–722.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0304-4130.2004.00171.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Vreese, C.H., E. Lauf, and J. Peter. 2007. The Media and European Parliament Elections: Second-Rate Coverage of a Second-Order Event? In European Elections and Domestic Politics: Lessons from the Past and Scenarios for the Future, ed. W. Van der Brug, and C. Van der Eijk, 116–130. Paris: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dinas, E., A.H. Trechsel, and K. Vassil. 2014. A Look into the Mirror: Preferences, Representation and Electoral Participation. Electoral Studies 36: 290–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ervik, B. 2012. Second-Order Arguments for Second-Order Elections? Measuring “Election Stakes” in a Multilevel Context: The Case of Norway. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 22 (1): 27–50.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2011.642241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gemenis, K., and M. Rosema. 2014. Voting Advice Applications and Electoral Turnout. Electoral Studies 36: 281–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hagenaars, J.A., and A.L. McCutcheon. 2002. Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heath, A., I. McLean, B. Taylor, and J. Curtice. 1999. Between First and Second Order: A Comparison of Voting Behaviour in European and Local Elections in Britain. European Journal of Political Research 35: 389–414.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00454.Google Scholar
  11. Hirzalla, F., L. Van Zoonen, and J. De Ridder. 2010. Internet use and Political Participation: Reflections on the Mobilization/Normalization Controversy. The Information Society 27 (1): 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.534360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hix, S., and M. Marsh. 2011. Second-Order Effects Plus Pan-European Political Swings: An Analysis of European Parliament Elections Across Time. Electoral Studies 30 (1): 4–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hobolt, S.B., and J.J. Spoon. 2012. Motivating the European Voter: Parties, Issues and Campaigns in European Parliament Elections. European Journal of Political Research 51 (6): 701–727.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02057.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobolt, S.B., and J. Wittrock. 2011. The second-order election model revisited: An experimental test of vote choices in European Parliament elections. Electoral Studies 30 (1): 29–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooghe, M., and W. Teepe. 2007. Party Profiles on the Web: An Analysis of the Logfiles of Non-partisan Interactive Political Internet Sites in the 2003 and 2004 Election Campaigns in Belgium. New Media & Society 9 (6): 965–985.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807082726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeffery, C., and D. Hough. 2003. Regional Elections in Multi-Level Systems. European Urban and Regional Studies 10 (3): 199–212.  https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764030103002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kamoen, N., B.C. Holleman, A. Krouwel, J. Van de Pol, and C. De Vreese. 2015. The Effect of Voting Advice Applications on Political Knowledge and Vote Choice. Irish Political Studies 30 (4): 595–618.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2015.1099096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaye, B.K., and T.J. Johnson. 2004. A Web for all reasons: Uses and Gratifications of Internet Components for Political Information. Telematics and Informatics 21 (3): 197–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-5853(03)00037-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kenski, K., and N.J. Stroud. 2006. Connections Between Internet Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 50 (2): 173–192.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleinnijenhuis, J., J. Van de Pol, A. Van Hoof, and A.P.M. Krouwel. 2017. Genuine Effects of Vote Advice Applications on Party Choice. Party Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817713121.Google Scholar
  21. Krouwel, A., T. Vitiello, and M. Wall. 2012. The Practicalities of Issuing Vote Advice: A New Methodology for Profiling and Matching. International Journal of Electronic Governance 5 (3/4): 223–243.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2012.051308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu, Y.-I., and W.P. Eveland. 2005. Education, Need for Cognition, and Campaign Interest as Moderators of News Effects on Political Knowledge: An Analysis of the Knowledge Gap. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82 (4): 910–929.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marschall, S., and M. Schulze. 2012. The emergence of the “voter 2.0”? VAA users in a changing political communication sphere. In Paper Prepared for the XXVI Convegno SISP, Università Roma Tre (Vol. Rome).Google Scholar
  24. Marschall, S. 2014. Profiling Users. In Matching Voters with Parties and Candidates. Voting Advice Applications in Comparative Perspective, eds. D. Garzia and S. Marschall, 93–104. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  25. Marschall, S., and M. Schultze. 2015. German E-Campaigning and the Emergence of a “Digital Voter”? An Analysis of the Users of the Wahl-O-Mat. German Politics 24 (4): 525–541.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2014.949681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morrell, M.E. 2003. Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy. The Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (4): 589–602.  https://doi.org/10.1086/378965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norris, P. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, vol. 40. Cambridge, UK: The Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Otjes, S., and T. Louwerse. 2014. Populists in Parliament: Comparing Left-Wing and Right-Wing Populism in the Netherlands. Political Studies 63 (1): 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reif, K., and H. Schmitt. 1980. Nine Second-Order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results. European Journal of Political Research 8 (1): 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schultze, M. 2014. Effects of Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) on Political Knowledge About Party Positions. Policy and Internet 6 (1): 46–68.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sudulich, M.L., D. Garzia, A.H. Trechsel, and K. Vassil. 2014. Matching Voters with Parties in Supranational Elections: The Case of the EU Profiler. In Matching Voters with Parties and Candidates. Voting Advice Applications in Comparative Perspective, eds. D. Garzia and S. Marschall, 175–182. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  32. Van de Pol, J. 2016. Voting Wiser. The Effect of Voting Advice Applications on Political Understanding. University of Amsterdam. http://hdl.handle.net/11245.1/dd560adb-ff73-4c0d-b7e8-d680107409b5.
  33. Van de Pol, J., B.C. Holleman, N. Kamoen, A. Krouwel, and C. De Vreese. 2014. Beyond Young, Highly Educated Males: A Typology of VAA Users. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11 (4): 397–411.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.958794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van der Brug, W., K. Gattermann, and C.H. De Vreese. 2016. Introduction: How Different were the European Elections of 2014? Politics and Governance 4 (1): 1–8. http://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i1.591.
  35. Wall, M., A. Krouwel, and T. Vitiello. 2012. Do Voters Follow the Recommendations of Voter Advice Application Websites? A Study of the Effects of kieskompas.nl on Its Users’ Vote Choices in the 2010 Dutch Legislative Elections. Party Politics 30 (3): 416–428.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811436054.Google Scholar
  36. Westle, B., C. Begemann, and A. Rütter. 2014. The “Wahl-O-Mat” in the Course of the German Federal Election 2013—Effects of a German VAA on Users’ Election-Relevant Political Knowledge. Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft 24 (4): 389–426.  https://doi.org/10.5771/1430-6387-2014-4-389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zaller, J.R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, US: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jasper van de Pol
    • 1
  • Naomi Kamoen
    • 2
  • André Krouwel
    • 3
  • Claes de Vreese
    • 1
  • Bregje Holleman
    • 4
  1. 1.Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Tilburg center for Cognition and CommunicationTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of CommunicationVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Utrecht Institute of LinguisticsUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations