Виртуална комуникация

Virtual Communication

 

DOI 10.55206/GPTC5674

 

Elena-Irina I. Ghinet

University of Bucharest, The Faculty of Journalism and Communication Studies

E-mail: elenairina.ghinet@drd.unibuc.ro

 

Abstract: Romanian politicians have been using Facebook profiles as a digital tool. This study aims to analyze the gender dimension in the local electoral cam­paign for Bucharest City Hall in 2020 and to establish how the candidates portray themselves on their Facebook pages by going against hegemonic views. One of the focuses of the study in on gender and social media personalization and the second one is on building a personal political brand during the electoral cam­paign through gender identification. The hypothesis is that new media, (inter­active, so­cial, multimodal, user-centered, and circularly networked) play key role in this new communicative paradigm and they may become an important dis­cursive space for redefining gender stereotypes and reproducing (new) social identities. The analysis focuses on the media and digital tools and on to what extent gender influences the self-personalization in digital campaigning. Ac­cording to the analy­sis, the woman candidate engages in a particularly gendered form of personalizing by presenting herself through social media in caregiving roles. At the same time, the two candidates (both female and male) for Bucharest City Hall, used a mixed strategy of gender adaptiveness. On the one hand, the candidates use and present gender stereotypes in their self-presentation, in order to benefit from existing voter expectations and norms. On the other hand, they use a bending or overturning stereotype strategy as an alternative one.

 

Keywords: election campaign; female politicians; male politicians; multi­modali­ty; social media; new communicative paradigm; gender stereotypes; digital iden­tity, SC-CDS, personalization.

Introduction

Romanian politicians have been using Facebook profiles, considered to have a high level of self-representation, as a digital tool (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010) [1], especially during elections. Self-presentation is a form of commu­nicative agency (Wagner and Everitt, 2019) [2] and, in this regard, social media could provide means to strengthen women candidates in a context in which feminist studies (Freedman, 1997 [3]; Ross, 2002 [4]) criticize the stereotypical representations of political women in the media.

As opposed to the linear-source message-audience flow of traditional me­dia, the new media, (interactive, social, multimodal, user-centered, and circularly networked), in the new communicative paradigm (KhosraviNik, Espo­sito, 2018) [5] may become an important discursive space for redefining gender stereotypes and reproducing (new) social identities.

This study aims to analyze the gender dimension in the local electoral campaign for Bucharest City Hall in 2020 and how the candidates portray themselves on their Facebook pages by going against the hegemonic views and to analyze to what extent gender influences the self-personalization in digital campaigning.

The images serve to anchor meaning (Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996) [6] but also offer a more complex interpretation of a given post. A multimodal view of discourse (Jewitt, 2012 [7]; Jewitt, 2014 [8]; Kress, 2011 [9]) has great value for a holistic feminist critique of discursive constructions of gender (Achin, C., & Bereni, 2000 [10]) since images can reinforce stereotypical forms of masculinity, Jewitt, Oyama, 2001). [11]

In a context where the equation of popularity as legitimacy is being fed by the personalization on social media, women politicians are still particularly vulnerable to gender stereotypes and therefore tread a careful line between showing sufficient emotion to be credible as women and sufficient profes­sionalism to be seen as credible politicians (McGregor et al., 2016 [12]; Meeks, 2016, 2019 [13]).

According to our analysis, the woman candidate engages in a particularly gendered form of personalizing by presenting herself through social media in caregiving roles. (McGregor et al., 2016). [14] At the same time, the two candidates (both female and male), used a mixed strategy of gender adaptiveness (Banwart & McKinney, 2005), reinforcing, on one hand, gender stereotypes in the self-presentation, in order to benefit from existing voter expectations and norms, and a bending or overturning stereotype strategy (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011) [15] as an alternative one.

Multimodality is at the center of communications in the new commu­nicative paradigm (Khosravinik, Esposito, 2018) [16] which is a product of participation characterized by a decentralization of power (Khosravinik, 2014) [17], the new media, opposed to the linear-source message-audience flow of traditional media, are interactive, social, user-centered, circularly networked, providing an increased range of affordances in communication (Kress, 2011). In a communication medium where popularity is legitimacy and which requires constructing a representation of oneself (Enli, 2017) [18] that is at once both private and public, multimodal items might be particularly useful tools for women candidates to counteract masculine communication norms in politics (Meeks, 2013). [19] In fact, social media can provide women candidates with better control over their self-images that help them bypass media filters and journalistic frames (Sandberg, Öhberg, 2017). [20]

Three ideas are to be considered when we talk about political commu­nication on Social Media: the rise of personality politics, the prevalence of affect over argumentation and the freedom to use a strategy of gender adaptiveness (Banwart & McKinney, 2005). [21]

This study aims to analyze the gender dimension in the local electoral campaign for Bucharest City Hall in 2020, in particular, how the candidates portray themselves on their Facebook pages (photos) by going against the hegemonic views. We consider that how politicians present themselves may include a response to the gender-based stereotypes held by the media. Stereotypic and counter-stereotypic gender strategies are demonstrably and inherently a discourse, as shown in the adjustments in the construction of the ethos of male and female candidates (Achin, Dorlin, 2008). [22] The second research objective is to analyze to what extent gender influences self-personalization in digital campaigning. We assume that women candidates tend to ‘self-personalize’ more and may engage in a particularly gendered form of personalizing by presenting themselves through social media in caring roles. (McGregor et al., 2016). [23]

 

The multimodality ‘turn’

Since the new election battleground is increasingly found on social me­dia, the political communication genre has become more multimodal, cross-referencing, and interactive (Lilleker et al., 2017) [24], politicians presenting themselves on social media using visuals, which accords with the personalisation turn of modern politics (Enli and Skogerbø, 2013 [25]; McGregor et al., 2016 [26];). Social media not only allow for sharing things from one’s private life, they also provide an immediacy that conveys authenticity (Hernández-Santaolalla, 2020). In fact, the use of images is also an important way in which to convey this complex notion of authenticity, with video being particularly successful in boosting shares and thus extending a politician’s reach (Koc-Michalska et al., 2020). [27];

The images serve to anchor meaning (Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996) [28] but also offer a more complex interpretation of a given post. The picture supe­riority effect (Rosenberg et al., 1986) [29]; suggests that a single photo can com­mu­nicate an important amount of political information to voters and individual candidates can influence public perception through strategic use of social me­dia.

A multimodal social semiotic approach provides a richer perspective on the multiple means involved in meaning making and communicating; in the (self-) making of identity and in the production/ dissemination/ interpretation of images and discourses (Rovența-Frumuşani et al., 2022). [30] Multimodal discourse analysis (Jewitt, 2012 [31]; Jewitt, 2014 [32]; Kress, 2011 [33] is used to see how gender ideology and gendered relations of power get (re)produced, negotiated, and contested in discourse. Legitimation is one of the main social functions of ideologies (van Dijk, 2001 [34]), but in social media where the design values and processes are at work, legitimacy is given by the visibility/popularity, derived from accumulated symbolic power, i.e., power is legitimacy (KhosraviNik, Es­posito, 2018). [35] In fact, the equation of popularity as legitimacy is being fed by the personalization on social media, the logic of regimes of popularity buil­ding being sustained through engagement of prosumers (Ritzer and Jur­genson, 2010). [36] We are talking about the ethos of visibility-as-legitimacy or what Fountaine (2019) [37] identified as the ‘likeability’ frame which was ‘rooted in the visual and rhetorical mix of personal and political’.

Politicians use a variety of options, but Facebook maintains its lead (Bossetta, 2018 [38]; Magin et al., 2016 [39]; Yarchi and Samuel-Azran, 2018 [40]) since it has a greater reach but also because of its more diverse audience (Auxier and Anderson, 2021). [41] In a communication medium where popu­larity is legitimacy and which requires constructing a representation of oneself  (Enli, 2017) that is at once both private and public, multimodal items might be particularly useful tools for women candidates in order to counteract masculine communication norms in politics (Meeks, 2013). [42]

Thus, how women politicians present themselves may include a response to the gender-based stereotypes held by citizens and the media about them (Dittmar, 2010 [43]; Winfrey and Schnoebelen, 2019 [44]), which is generally less favorable (Heith, 2003 [45]; Jalalzai, 2006 [46]; Kahn, 1996 [47]). A multi­modal view of discourse has great value for a holistic feminist critique of dis­cursive constructions of gender (Lazar, 2000 [48]) since images can reinforce stereotypical forms of masculinity, Jewitt, Oyama, 2001 [49]).

 

Gender based stereotypes

Research in political science indicates that gender-based stereotypes are a central element in how the public views political candidates (Dolan, 2005) [50], and these stereotypes shape how a candidate must communicate to voters. As Huddy and Terkildsen (1993) [51] found, women are most often associated with traits related to warmth and expressiveness. These traits include: honesty, in­tegrity, cooperation with others, sensitivity and understanding of others, a nur­turing and gentle nature, emotional expressiveness, caring, helping, being in­volved, being responsible but also passivity, and dependence (Atkeson & Krebs, 2008 [52]; Bystrom, 2003 [53]; Bystrom, 2004 [54]; Dittmar, 2010 [55]; Dolan, 2005 [56]; Eagly & Karau, 2002 [57]; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993. [58]

With the notion of “hegemonic masculinity”, Raewyn Connell (1995) [59] proposed a more attentive approach to structural inequalities, in opposition with women, but also with other masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity is typically presented as an „enough” of virility in opposition to the „not enough” charac­terizing gay people and the „too much” morbid virility attributed to popular classes (Volery, Tersigny, 2015 [60], Achin, Dorlin, 2008. [61]).

Women politicians are particularly vulnerable to gender stereotypes and therefore tread a careful line between showing sufficient emotion to be credible as women and sufficient professionalism to be seen as credible politicians (McGregor et al., 2016 [62]; Meeks, 2016, 2019 [63]).

Female candidates might be able to overcome this subtle form of gender bias by emphasizing masculine qualities; (Fridkin & Kenney, 2015 [64]), but this strategy runs the risk of the double bind, for being too tough and not nice enough—especially from voters of the opposite political party (Krupnikov & Bauer, 2014 [65]).

The analyses of the traits female candidates highlight in their campaign materials, show a greater focus on masculine over feminine traits (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011). [66] Political women in Romania navigate between women’s traditional gender roles that emphasize familial and maternal instincts, and those that stress feminine toughness (Schneider, 2014a,b) [67], albeit with only sporadic and contradictory attempts to recast women’s position as a tolerated presence in the political arena. There is a clear female choice for the masculine model, perceived as the only legitimate one in the extraordinary events. On the other hand, men do not hesitate to promote the personal side of their life, family and private (Roventa-Frumusani, 2015). [68] This is the solution adopted for the moment by many Romanian female politicians, with modulations induced by the ideology of the party and the persona of the candidate. (Roventa-Frumusani, Irimescu 2018). [69]

Women politicians center on displaying their professional life and they rely on the presence of ordinary people to create an image of caring personalities, but still with a focus on formal activities. (Savulescu, Vitelar, 2012). [70]

Gender and social media personalization

To participate in online social networking, individuals have no choice but to represent themselves’ and to do so virtually requires a highly individualized and personalized approach (Enli and Thumim, 2012). [71] In fact, personalization requires the individualization of the res publica (Hernández-Santaolalla, 2020) [72] and placing the focus on the individual politician rather than on the political party and an increased personalized campaigning (Enli and Skogerbø (2013). [73]

Personalization comes with the tendency to emphasize the affective-sub­jective content of communication (Khosravinik, Esposito, 2018) [74] which relates to power and empowerment of the individual. Papacharissi (2015) argues that networked digital structures are characterized by affects and uses the term ‘networked publics’ as ‘publics that are restructured by networked technologies and, therefore, simultaneously are (1) the space constructed through networks technologies and (2) the imagined collective that emerges as a result of the intersection of people, technology and practice. [75]

In the context of digital media technologies, the argumentative content seems to be less central compared to the affective content: the political commu­nication on Social Media denies that real politics is about policy, argumentation and overarching principles and happily reduces it to media appearance, like­ability, psychological connection and relatability (Khosravinik, 2018). [76]

While the personalizing trend in politics overall may not be gendered, there are some reasons to suspect that politicians will engage differently in per­sonalizing communications depending upon their gender considerations. We think that women candidates tend to ‘self-personalize’ more and may engage in a particularly gendered form of personalizing by presenting themselves through social media in caregiving roles. (McGregor et al., 2016). [77]

But, the effect of the ‘privatization’ of politics (Holtz-Bacha, 2004) and the ‘politicization of private persona’ (Langer, 2007) [78] in women politicians, who personalize their campaigns and reveal personal details about being a woman, a wife and a mother, is the double bind that calls into question their competence and ability to do their job.  In fact, gender stereotypes put female candidates in a double bind between being seen as capable political leaders and fulfilling gender expectations (Costa, 2020). [79] If female politicians exhibit gender stereotypical traits, they are not rewarded for merely meeting expectations, and they are evaluated unfavorably on counter-stereotypical traits, such as assertiveness and leadership. Yet if they exhibit such counter-stereotypical traits, they are penalized for lacking feminine, stereotype-confirming traits (Krupnikov and Bauer 2014). [80]

Research questions and analytical framework

This study aims:

1. a) to analyze the gender dimension in the local electoral campaign for Bucharest City Hall in 2020, in particular, how the candidates portray themselves on their Facebook pages (photos) by going against hegemonic views. We con­sider that how politicians present themselves may include a response to the gender-based stereotypes held by the media. Stereotypic and counter -stereotypic gender strategies are demonstrably and inherently a discourse, as shown in the adjustments in the construction of the ethos of male and female candidates (Achin, Dorlin, 2007). [81]

Hypothesis

The two candidates (both Nicușor Dan and Gabriela Firea) will use a mixed strategy, reinforcing, on the one hand, gender stereotypes in self-presentation, in order to benefit from the existing expectations and norms of the voters, but also a strategy of overturning stereotypes as an alternative: candidates seek to deviate from the typical status quo.

• Q.1: How is gender built on Facebook?
• Q.2: What gender stereotypes are used?
• Q.3.: What type of strategy do the candidates use (reinforce gender stereo­types in their self-presentation, to benefit from meeting the existing expectations of voters, or try to deviate from their status quo).

We will use Andrew J. A. Mattan and Tamara A. Small framework (2021) [82] to analyze gender in visual, political, online content based on Schneider’s ana­lytical framework (2014a, 2014b) [83] as a methodology.

Table 1 Variables

 

Variables	Reinforcing WOMEN	Overturning WOMEN	Reinforcing MEN	Overturning MEN
Presence of others
Family (parental status) Cmeciu, 2014, Sanghvi and Hodges, 2015).	present	absent	absent	present
Non-familial children (Cmeciu, 2014; Muñoz and Towner, 2017)	present	absent	absent	present
Senior citizens (Cmeciu, 2014)	present	absent	absent	present
Appearance
Informal attire (Flicker, 2013)	present	absent	absent	present
Smiling (Bystrom et al., 2004)	present	absent	absent	present
Issues (Dittmar, 2010; Schneider, 2014b; Lee and Lim, 2016)	Communal Issues	Agentic issues	Agentic issues	Communal Issues

1. b) The second research objective is to analyze to what extent gender in­fluences self-personalization in digital campaigning.

Hypothesis

We assume that women candidates tend to ‘self-personalize’ more and may engage in a particularly gendered form of personalizing by presenting themselves through social media in caring roles. (McGregor et al., 2016) [84]

We operationalized ‘self-personalizing’ by taking the references to politi­cians’ personal lives from Langer’s study (2007) [85], including their family (we compared the ways in which female and male candidates brought their families and family lives into their social media streams).

 

Findings

Nicușor Dan was the main opponent of the incumbent mayor in the 2020 elections, Gabriela Firea. He announced his candidacy as an independent having the support of the alliance that brought together the most important right-wing parties in Romania. He was elected as general mayor with 42.8% of the votes, ahead of the mayor in office, Gabriela Firea. Gabriela Firea represented the opposition, left-wing party and had won the elections for the general mayor’s office in 2016.

A total of 299 Facebook posts and 1188 photos were manually coded across the election campaign period (August 28-September 25, 2020). Nicusor Dan made nearly twice as many posts (192) as Gabriela Firea (107) and this confirms the fact that opposition parties are more prolific users of social media (Larsson and Kalsnes, 2014). [86] Both candidates posted more during the final week, with Nicușor Dan making a significant final push with 11 posts on the day before the vote, the majority of which were negative in tone.

Under the slogan People first, Gabriela Firea privileged the photos of her in different places (opening nurseries, centers for violence against women, on construction sites, at COVID testing centers, etc.) showing what she had achieved during her mandate.

Nicusor Dan had led a negative campaign which was built around attacks on the opponent, since the first days of the campaign, which is confirmed by the scholars, since negative messages are the most powerful (Fridkin, Kenney, 2011). [87] Ab contrario, Gabriela Firea has chosen to be conciliatory (“hatred does not build” in her own words).

Nicusor Dan very rarely posted about his family, unlike Firea (3 pictures for Dan versus 32 for Firea). „Family card” is a privacy strategy which women are more likely to employ than their male counterparts (Meeks, 2016, 2019) [88] and is a reinforcing strategy for Gabriela Firea. Nicușor Dan reticence to play the family card is reinforcing the gender masculine stereotypes. We compared the ways in which Gabriela Firea and Nicușor Dan brought their families and family lives into their social media streams. Consistent with communal traits that are often associated with caregiving, Firea pictured with her family, which is a gender-reinforcing strategy (Sanghvi and Hodges, 2015). [89]

The hypothesis that woman candidate Gabriela Firea tends to ‘self-per­sonalize’ more and may engage in a particularly gendered form of personalizing by presenting herself through social media in caring roles, is confirmed. (McGregor et al., 2016). [90]

The presence of others is one indicator of gender-based stereotypes found in the literature. We looked for the presence of seniors or other non-familial children, too. We found that the Nicușor Dan rarely posted pictures with these actors (only 3% included at least one of these actors). This suggests gender-rein­forcing strategies for him even if he could have capitalized on the use of these actors, since male politicians do not face the double bind and they can present them­selves as agentic but also nurturing and empathetic (McGregor et al., 2016). [91]

Table 2 Findings

Variables	Gabriela Firea N=857 photos	Nicușor Dan N=331 photos
Presence of others
Family (parental status) Cmeciu, 2014, Sanghvi and Hodges, 2015).	32 (4%)	3 (1%)
Non-familial children (Cmeciu, 2014; Muñoz and Towner, 2017)	22 (2,5%)	0
Senior citizens (Cmeciu, 2014)	53 (6%)	8 (2%)
Total	107 (12,5% of all the photos and 30% of the photos in which the candidate appears)	11 (3% of all the photos and 5% of the photos with him)
Appearance
Formal attire	85 (10%)	100%
Smiling	156 from 363 (42%)	72 (33%)
Issues
Communal issues (posts) education, health care, seniors, addiction, food insecurity, environmental protection, and women’s health and reproductive rights	Education: 13 Health care: 13 Seniors: 2 Environmental protection: 2 Women’s health:  4 Violence against women: 3 Reproductive rights: 3	Education: 2 Environmental protection: 9   Violence against women: 1
Total	40 (37% of all the posts)	12 (6% of the posts)
Agentic issues economy, military, security, law enforcement, defense, business, and international affairs.	Economy: 14 Business: 3 International affairs: 2	Economy: 27 International affairs: 2
Total	19 (18% from all the posts)	29 (15% from all the posts)

 

Nicușor Dan’s slogan was: The New Bucharest with 3 campaign themes: economy, investments and environment “New Bucharest, the city where people move better, breathe better, earn better”. However, Firea had more posts about economy and investments (18% of the total) than Dan who had 15%, which is an overturning strategy for the male candidate.

Some posts made by the candidates attracted significantly more attention than most, in terms of likes. For Gabriela Firea, the post which attracted the highest volume of likes (94.000) was posted on 29th August and was a dance with her husband, Bogdan Pandele (https://fb.watch/mVbeaEN-EC/).

 

The next two posts with most reach (33.000 likes and 29.000 likes) for the woman candidate is from the emotional-personal register, too: on 25th September she posted a video message before the election day with good thoughts of love and wisdom: “Some personal thoughts now, at the end of a period in which all kinds of feelings, facts, secrets came to the surface. What I want is for us to look to the future with love and hope. Hate cannot cause construction or anything beneficial. Serene thoughts!” (https://fb.watch/mVbG4K3OB_/)

The third place in terms of visibility of posts is a video with her husband on their 10th wedding anniversary.

For Nicușor Dan, his most appreciated post (15.000 emojis) is a video in which he dismantles, in one and a half minute, Gabriela Firea’s People First slogan (https://fb.watch/mVc4wVfhxU/

The post prompting the second highest volume of emojis (9.000) was the one featuring him with his newborn boy. The third place (8.800) was occupied by a post from September 20 with Nicușor Dan denouncing Dana Budeanu, fashion designer, public figure and political supporter of Gabriela Firea, who had made an outrageous call to men to beat women, in a video (https://fb.watch/mZ 8me_Oeg-/).

In fact, Facebook audiences generally respond emotionally to posts centered around personal as opposed to political content (Farkas and Bene, 2021). [92]

Smiling and touching are considered more feminine qualities, smiling beeing associated with women’s desire to seek approval (Bystrom et al., 2004) [93], while Cmeciu (2014 [94]) suggests that the presence of physical contact (hugging and embracing) can be associated with women being perceived as compassionate. The two candidates are often smiling in the photographs posted (42% of all her photos for Firea) and 33% for Dan. Consistent with gender stereo­types, there are more posts with Firea smiling than Nicușor Dan. However, the presence of a smile on Dan’s photos can be considered a strategy to overturn gen­der stereotypes.

In terms of clothing choices, there are some gendered differences in our data. Firea typically posted photographs of her campaigning in informal clothing, including, blouses, sleeveless dresses and shirts: 90 per cent of all photos. Nicușor Dan, on the other hand, dressed himself only in formal attire. Both of these findings are consistent with reinforced gendered norms, with formal attire being more likely associated with political men than women.

Women politicians present themselves in a gender reinforcing manner, they will emphasize communal issues, while men will highlight agentic issues.  Communal issues include education, healthcare, environmental protection, and women’s health and reproductive rights; agentic issues include economy, se­curity, law enforcement, defence, or business and international affairs.  Only 6% per cent of all issues presented in Nicușor Dan’s feed were coded as com­munal. More than 40% of the issues presented on the Firea account were com­munal.

Conclusions

This study pointed out the gender dimension in the local electoral campaign for Bucharest City Hall in 2020. The two candidates (both woman and man) used a mixed strategy, reinforcing on the one hand, gender stereotypes in the self-presentation, in order to benefit from existing voter expectations and norms. They both used in very few cases a bending or overturning stereotype strategy as an alternative.

Gender had an important influence in self-personalization for Gabriela Firea since she presented herself through social media in caring roles (as a mother). She expressed traits that confirm gender stereotypes in her posts such as cooperation with others, sensitivity and understanding of others, a nurturing and gentle nature, emotional expressiveness, caring, helping and being involved. Firea used the family card as a privacy strategy, while Nicușor Dan had reticence to play it. He could have used the family card since male politicians do not face the double bind and they can present themselves as agentic but also nurturing and empathetic.

Consistent with communal traits that are often associated with caregiving, Firea pictured with her husband, children and seniors wich is a gender-reinforcing strategy (Sanghvi and Hodges, 2015). [95]

Nicusor Dan had led a negative campaign which was built around attacks on the opponent which confirms the masculine expectations that political leaders should be tough, assertive, and decisive (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). [96]

Even if social media could provide means to strengthen women candidates in a context in which feminist studies criticize the stereotypical representations of political women in the media, Gabriela Firea used the strategy of reinforcing gender stereotypes, the only exception was the prevalence of using themes from the economic sphere (investments, modernizations, business), which can be explained by the fact that she was an economic journalist before becoming a politician: 18% of the total compared to what Dan had (15%), which is considered an overturning strategy.

In a context where the equation of popularity as legitimacy is being fed by the personalization on social media, Gabriela Firea used the interactive digital environment as a platform that is especially adaptable for developing the commu­nication strategies of woman candidates, proving to be more suited to the char­acteristics normally associated with that gender (personalization, use of affect).

We found that the emotion contained in the posts, the personalization of the narrative and the use of private elements are the most important factors that influence the attractiveness of a post. Social Media empowerss and validate the emotional understanding of multimodal discourses, and encourage a commu­nication dynamic that rewards such behavior with a form of perceived validation  as engagement.

Limitations

We cannot know for sure whether the posts were written by Nicușor Dan and Firea, or by members of their campaign team. To better understand election campaigns online, we should therefore also study what the candidates are doing between elections.

References and Notes

[1] Kaplan, A, & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenge and opportunities of social media, Business Horizons, 53 (1).

[2] Wagner, A., & Everitt, J. (2019). Introduction: Gender Identities and Political Communication, In Gendered Mediation: Identity and Image Making in Canadian Politics, Wagner, Angelia and Everitt, Joanna (Eds.). Vancouver: UBC Press.

[3] Freedman, J. (1997). Femmes politiques. Mythes et symboles, Paris, Le Harmattan.

[4] Ross, K. (2002). Women’s Place in ‘Male’ Space: Gender and Effect in Parl­ia­mentary Contexts. Parliamentary Affairs 55 (1), 189–201.

[5] Khosravinik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018). Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally-mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 45–68.

[6] Kress, G., & Van Leeuwn, T. (2006). [1996]. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual (2nd Design (edn.). New York: Routledge.

[7] Jewitt, C. (2012). Multimodal Discourse Analysis. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. James Paul Gee and Michael Handford (Eds.). Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 35–50.

[8] Jewitt, C. (2014). (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Second Edition. London: Routledge.

[9] Kress, G. (2011). ‘Partnerships in research’: multimodality and ethnography. Quali­tative Research, 11(3), 239–260.

[10] Achin, C., & Bereni L. (dir.) (2013). Dictionnaire genre et science politique. Concepts, objets, problèmes, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.

[11] Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual Meaning – a social semiotic approach, in Van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (2004). The handbook of visual analysis, SAGE Publications Ltd.

[12] McGregor, S. C., Lawrence R. G., & Cardona A. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Gubernatorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[13] Meeks, L. (2013). A woman’s place: Gender politics and Twitter in the 2012 elections (doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle.

Meeks, L. (2016). Gendered Styles, Gendered Differences: Candidates’ Use of Per­sonalization and Interactivity on Twitter.” Journal of Information Technology & Poli­tics, 13.

[14] McGregor, S. C. et. al. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Guber­natorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[15] Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2011). The role of candidate traits in campaigns. J. Polit, 73, 61–73.

[16] Khosravinik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018). Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1).

[17] Khosravinik, M. (2014). Critical discourse analysis, power and new media discourse in Yusuf Kalyango & Monika Kopytowska (Eds.), Why Discourse Matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World, 287–306. New York: Peter Lang.

[18] Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, Euro­pean Journal of Communication, 32.

[19] Meeks, L. (2013). A woman’s place: Gender politics and Twitter in the 2012 elec­tions (doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle.

[20] Sandberg, L. & Öhberg, P. (2017). The role of gender in online campaigning: Swedish candidate’s motives and use of social media during the European election 2014, Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 14.

[21] Banwart, M. C., & McKinney, M.S. (2005). A Gendered Influence in Campaign Debates? Analysis of Mixed‐gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial Debates, Communication Studies, 56:4, 353–373.

[22] Achin, C., & Dorlin, E. (2008). « Nicolas Sarkozy ou la masculinité mascarade du Président », Raisons politiques, 31.

[23] McGregor, S. C. et. al. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Guberna­torial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[24] Lilleker, D. G., Koc-Michalska, K., Negrine, R., Gibson, R., Vedel, T., & Strudel, S. (2017). Social media campaigning in Europe: Mapping the terrain, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14:4, 293–298.

[25] Enli, G., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication, Information, Communication & Society 16(5), 757–774.

[26] McGregor, S. C. et. al. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Guberna­torial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[27] Koc-Michalska, K., Lilleker, D., et. al. (2020). Facebook affordances and citizen engagement during elections: European political parties and their benefit from online strategies? Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 18, 1–14.

[28] Kress, G., & Van Leeuwn, T. (2006). [1996]. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual (2nd Design (edn.). New York: Routledge.

[29] Rosenberg, S. W., Bohan, L., McCafferty, P., & Kevin, H. (1986). The Image and the Vote: The Effect of Candidate Presentation on Voter Preference, American Jour­nal of Political Science, 30 (1): 108–127.

[30] Rovența-Frumuşani, D., Rodat, S., & Branea, S. (2022). Gender and Multimodality in 2019 European Parliament Election Campaign. In: Novelli, E., Johansson, B., Wring, D. (Eds.). The 2019 European Electoral Campaign. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

[31] Jewitt, C. (2012). Multimodal Discourse Analysis. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. James Paul Gee and Michael Handford (Eds.). Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 35–50.

[32] Jewitt, C. (2014). (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Second Edition. London: Routledge.

[33] Kress, G. (2011). ‘Partnerships in research’: multimodality and ethnography. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 239–260.

[34] Dijk, van, T. (2021). Critical Discourse Analysis, In. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton. (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, (pp. 352–372). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

[35] Khosravinik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018). Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 45–68.

[36] Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. G. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer, 10(1), SAG Journal.

[37] Fountaine, S., Ross, K., & Comrie, M. (2019). Across the great divide: Gender, Twitter, and elections in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Communication Research and Practice 5(3): 226–240.

[38] Bossetta, M. (2018). The digital architectures of social media: Comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 election, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95(2), 471–496.

[39] Magin, M., Podschuweit, N., Haβler, J., & Russman, U. (2016). Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication: A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns” Informa­tion, Communication & Society 20(11), 1698–1719.

[40] Yarchi, M., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2018). Women politicians are more engaging: male versus female politicians’ ability to generate users’ engagement on social media during an election campaign, Information, Communication & Society.

[41] Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2021). Social Media Use in 2021, Rew Research Center.

[42] Meeks, L. (2013). A woman’s place: Gender politics and Twitter in the 2012 elec­tions (doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle.

[43] Dittmar, K. (2010). Negotiating Gender: Campaign Practitioners’ Reflections on Gender, Strategy, and Campaigns, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

[44] Winfrey, K. L., & Schnoebelen, J. M. (2019). Running as a Woman (or Man), A Review of Research on Political Communicators and Gender Stereotypes, Review of Communication Research, 109–138.

[45] Heith, D. (2003). The lipstick watch: Media coverage, gender, and presidential campaigns. In R. P. Watson & A. Gordon (Eds.), Anticipating Madam President (pp. 123–130). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

[46] Jalalzai, F. (2006). Women candidates and the media: 1992–2000 elections. Politics and Policy, 34(3).

[47] Kahn, K. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

[48] Lazar, M. M. (2000). Gender, discourse and semiotics: The politics of parenthood representations, Discourse and Society, 11, 373–400.

[49] Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual Meaning – a social semiotic approach, in Van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (2004). The handbook of visual analysis, SAGE Publications Ltd.

[50] Dolan, K. (2005). Do Women Candidates Play to Gender Stereotypes? Do Men Candidates Play to Women? Candidate Sex and Issues Priorities on Campaign Websites, Political Research Quarterly – POLIT RES QUART. 58. 31–44.

[51] Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates, American Journal.

[52] Atkeson, L., & Krebs, T. (2008). Press Coverage of Mayoral Candidates: The Role of Gender in News Reporting and Campaign Issue Speech. Political Research Quarterly, Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 239–252.

[53] Bystrom, D. G (2003), On the way to the White House: Communication strategies for women candidates” In R. P. Watson, & A. Gordon (Eds.), Anticipating Madam President, 95–105, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

[54] Bystrom, D. G., et al. (2004). Gender and Candidate Communication: VideoStyle, WebStyle, NewsStyle, New York: Routledge.

[55] Dittmar, K. (2010). Negotiating Gender: Campaign Practitioners’ Reflections on Gender, Strategy, and Campaigns, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

[56] Dolan, K. (2005). Do Women Candidates Play to Gender Stereotypes? Do Men Candidates Play to Women? Candidate Sex and Issues Priorities on Campaign Websites, Political Research Quarterly – POLIT RES QUART. 58. 31–44.

[57] Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders, Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–595.

[58] Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates, American Journal.

[59] Connell, R. (2014, 1995). Masculinités. Enjeux sociaux de l’hégémonie, Paris, Éditions Amsterdam.

[60] Volery, I., & Tersigny S. S. (2015). La masculinité hégémonique au crible de l’âge. Ce que les espaces d’animation fréquentés par les 9-13 ans nous disent des masculinités du capitalisme avancé , Genre, sexualité et société, 13.

[61] Achin, C., & Dorlin. E. (2008). Nicolas Sarkozy ou la masculinité mascarade du Président, Raisons politiques, 31.

[62] McGregor, S. C. et. al. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Guberna­torial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[63] Meeks, L. (2016). Gendered Styles, Gendered Differences: Candidates’ Use of Personalization and Interactivity on Twitter.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13 (4), 295–310.

Meeks, L. (2019). Owning your message: Congressional candidates’ interactivity and issue ownership in mixed-gender campaigns, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16:2, 187–202.

[64] Fridkin, K. L. & Kenney, P. J. (2014). The Changing Face of Representation: The Gender of US Senators and Constituent Communications, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

[65] Krupnikov, Y., & Bauer, N. M. (2014). The Relationship Between Campaign Nega­tivity, Gender and Campaign Context. Polit Behav, 36, 167–188.

[66] Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2011). The role of candidate traits in campaigns. J. Polit, 73, 61–73.

[67] Schneider, M. C. (2014a). Gender-Based Strategies on Candidate Websites, Journal of Political Marketing 13 (4), 264–290.

Schneider, M. C. (2014b). The Effects of Gender-Bending on Candidate Evaluations, Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (1), 55–77.

[68] Rovența-Frumușani, D. (2015). Images publiques et vies privées sur Facebook. Étude de cas : femmes politiques roumaines, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies and Environmental Communication, 2(4) , 29–44.

[69] Roventa-Frumusani, D., & Irimescu, A. (2018). Web 2.0 et la politique au féminin en Roumanie postcommuniste, Communication, 35/1.

[70] Săvulescu, R., & A. Viţelar (2012). Pics or it didn’t happen: Analyzing Facebook photographs of Romanian women politicians, Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations, 1(14), 7–20.

[71] Enli, G. S., & Thumim, N. (2012). Socializing and Self-Representation online: Exploring Facebook. Observatorio (OBS*), 6(1).

[72] Hernández-Santaolalla, V. (2020). Personalization in Politics, 1–7, 10.1002/978 1119429128.iegmc227.

[73] Enli, G., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication, Information, Commu­nication & Society 16(5), 757–774.

[74] Khosravinik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018) Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 45–68.

[75] Papacharissi, Z. (2015). We Have Always Been Social. Social Media + Society. 1. 10.1177/2056305115581185.

[76] Khosravinik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018) Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 45–68.

[77] McGregor, S. C. et. al. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Guberna­to­rial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[78] Langer, A. I. (2007). A historical exploration of the personalisation of politics in the print media: The British prime ministers (1945–1999). Parliamentary Affairs, 60(3), 371–387.

[79] Costa, M. (2020). He Said, She Said: The Gender Double Bind in Legislator–Constituent Communication, Politics & Gender, 17, 1–24.

[80] Krupnikov, Y., & Bauer, N. M. (2014). The Relationship Between Campaign Negativity, Gender and Campaign Context. Polit Behav, 36, 167–188.

[81] Achin, C., & Dorlin, E. (2007). J’ai changé, toi non plus, Mouvements.

[82] Mattan, A., & Small, T. (2021). Worth a Thousand Words: The Study of Visual Gendered Self-Presentation on Twitter. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne De Science Politique, 54(2), 477–490.

[83] Schneider, M. C. (2014a), Gender-Based Strategies on Candidate Websites, Journal of Political Marketing 13 (4), 264–90.

Schneider, M. C. (2014b), The Effects of Gender-Bending on Candidate Evaluations, Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (1), 55–77.

[84] McGregor, S. C. et. al. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Guberna­torial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[85] Langer, A. I. (2007). A historical exploration of the personalisation of politics in the print media: The British prime ministers (1945–1999). Parliamentary Affairs, 60(3), 381.

[86] Larsson, A., & 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.

[87] Fridkin,  K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2011). The role of candidate traits in campaigns. J. Polit, 73, 61–73.

[88] Meeks, L. (2016). Gendered Styles, Gendered Differences: Candidates’ Use of Personalization and Interactivity on Twitter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13 (4), 295–310.

Meeks, L. (2019). Owning your message: Congressional candidates’ interactivity and issue ownership in mixed-gender campaigns, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16:2, 187–202.

[89] Sanghvi, M., & Hodges, N. (2015). Marketing the female politician: an exploration of gender and appearance, Journal of Marketing Management, 31:15–16, 1676–1694.

[90] McGregor, S. C. et. al. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Guber­natorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[91] McGregor, S. C. et. al. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Guber­natorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

[92] Farkas, X., & Bene, M. (2021). Images, Politicians, and Social Media: Patterns and Effects of Politicians’ Image-Based Political Communication Strategies on Social Media, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1940161220959553.

[93] Bystrom, D.G., et al. (2004). Gender and Candidate Communication: VideoStyle, WebStyle, NewsStyle, New York: Routledge.

[94] Cmeciu, C. (2014). Beyond the Online Faces of Romanian Candidates for the 2014 European Parliament Elections – A Visual Framing Analysis of Facebook Photo­graphic Images. In Ten Years of Facebook: Proceedings from the Third International Conference on Argumentation and Rhetoric, Gizela Horvath, Rozália K. Bako, and Eva Biro-Kaszas (Eds.). Nagyvarard: Partium Press.

[95] Sanghvi, M., & Hodges, N. (2015). Marketing the female politician: an exploration of gender and appearance, Journal of Marketing Management, 31:15–16, 1676 1694.

[96] Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642.

Bibliography

Achin, C., & Dorlin, E. (2007). J’ai changé, toi non plus, Mouvements.

Achin, C., & Dorlin, E. (2008). Nicolas Sarkozy ou la masculinité mascarade du Président, Raisons politiques, 31.

Achin, C., & Bereni L. (dir.) (2013). Dictionnaire genre et science politique. Concepts, objets, problèmes, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.

Atkeson, L., & Krebs, T. (2008). Press Coverage of Mayoral Candidates: The Role of Gender in News Reporting and Campaign Issue Speech. Political Research Quarterly, Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 239–252.

Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2021). Social Media Use in 2021, Rew Research Center

Banwart, M. C., & McKinney, M.S. (2005). A Gendered Influence in Campaign De­bates? Analysis of Mixed‐gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial De­bates, Communication Studies, 56:4, 353–373.

Bossetta, M. (2018). The digital architectures of social media: Comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 election, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95(2), 471–496.

Bystrom, D. G (2003), On the way to the White House: Communication strategies for women candidates” In R. P. Watson, & A. Gordon (Eds.), Anticipating Madam President, 95–105, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Bystrom, D. G., et al. (2004). Gender and Candidate Communication: VideoStyle, WebStyle, NewsStyle, New York: Routledge.

Cmeciu, C. (2014). Beyond the Online Faces of Romanian Candidates for the 2014 European Parliament Elections – A Visual Framing Analysis of Facebook Photo­graphic Images. In Ten Years of Facebook: Proceedings from the Third Inter­national Conference on Argumentation and Rhetoric, Gizela Horvath, Rozália K. Bako, and Eva Biro-Kaszas (Eds.). Nagyvarard: Partium Press.

Connell, R. (2014, 1995). Masculinités. Enjeux sociaux de l’hégémonie, Paris, Éditions Amsterdam.

Costa, M. (2020). He Said, She Said: The Gender Double Bind in Legislator–Constituent Communication, Politics & Gender, 17, 1–24.

Dijk, van, T. (2021). Critical Discourse Analysis, In. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton. (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, (pp. 352–372). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Dittmar, K. (2010). Negotiating Gender: Campaign Practitioners’ Reflections on Gender, Strategy, and Campaigns, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

Dolan, K. (2005). Do Women Candidates Play to Gender Stereotypes? Do Men Can­di­dates Play to Women? Candidate Sex and Issues Priorities on Campaign Websites, Political Research Quarterly – POLIT RES QUART. 58. 31–44.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders, Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–595.

Enli, G. S., & Thumim, N. (2012). Socializing and Self-Representation online: Exploring Facebook. Observatorio (OBS*), 6(1).

Enli, G., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication, Information, Com­mu­nication & Society 16(5), 757–774.

Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, European Journal of Communication, 32.

Farkas, X., & Bene, M. (2021). Images, Politicians, and Social Media: Patterns and Effects of Politicians’ Image-Based Political Communication Strategies on Social Media, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(1), 119–142.

Fountaine, S., Ross, K., & Comrie, M. (2019). Across the great divide: Gender, Twitter, and elections in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Communication Research and Practice 5(3): 226–240.

Freedman, J. (1997). Femmes politiques. Mythes et symboles, Paris, Le Harmattan.

Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2011). The role of candidate traits in campaigns. J. Polit, 73, 61–73.

Fridkin, K. L. & Kenney, P.J. (2014). The Changing Face of Representation: The Gender of US Senators and Constituent Communications, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Heith, D. (2003). The lipstick watch: Media coverage, gender, and presidential campaigns. In R. P. Watson & A. Gordon (Eds.), Anticipating Madam President (pp. 123–130). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Hernández-Santaolalla, V. (2020). Personalization in Politics, 1–7, 10.1002/97811194 29128.iegmc227.

Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates, American Journal.

Jalalzai, F. (2006). Women candidates and the media: 1992–2000 elections. Politics and Policy, 34(3).

Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual Meaning – a social semiotic approach, in Van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (2004). The handbook of visual analysis, SAGE Publications Ltd.

Jewitt, C. (2012). Multimodal Discourse Analysis. The Routledge Handbook of Dis­course Analysis. James Paul Gee and Michael Handford (Eds.). Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 35–50.

Jewitt, C. (2014). (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Second Edition. London: Routledge.

Kahn, K. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes in­fluence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Kaplan, A, & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenge and oppor­tunities of social media, Business Horizons, 53 (1).

Khosravinik, M. (2014). Critical discourse analysis, power and new media discourse in Yusuf Kalyango & Monika Kopytowska (Eds.), Why Discourse Matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World, 287–306. New York: Peter Lang.

Khosravinik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018). Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally-mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 45–68.

Koc-Michalska, K., Lilleker, D., et. al. (2020). Facebook affordances and citizen en­gagement during elections: European political parties and their benefit from on­line strategies? Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 18, 1–14.

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereo­types masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psycho­logical Bulletin, 137(4).

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwn, T. (2006). [1996]. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual (2nd Design (edn.). New York: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2011). ‘Partnerships in research’: multimodality and ethnography. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 239–260.

Krupnikov, Y., & Bauer, N. M. (2014). The Relationship Between Campaign Negativity, Gender, and Campaign Context. Polit Behav, 36, 167–188.

Langer, A. I. (2007). A historical exploration of the personalisation of politics in the print media: The British prime ministers (1945–1999). Parliamentary Affairs, 60(3), 371–387.

Larsson, A., & 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.

Lazar, M. M. (2000). Gender, discourse and semiotics: The politics of parenthood representations, Discourse and Society, 11, 373–400.

Lilleker, D. G., Koc-Michalska, K., Negrine, R., Gibson, R., Vedel, T., & Strudel, S. (2017). Social media campaigning in Europe: Mapping the terrain, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14:4, 293–298.

Magin, M., Podschuweit, N., Haβler, J., & Russman, U. (2016). Campaigning in the fourth age of political communication: A multi-method study on the use of Facebook by German and Austrian parties in the 2013 national election campaigns” Information, Communication & Society 20(11), 1698–1719.

Mattan, A., & Small, T. (2021). Worth a Thousand Words: The Study of Visual Gendered Self-Presentation on Twitter. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne De Science Politique, 54(2), 477–490.

McGregor, S. C., Lawrence R. G., & Cardona A. (2016). Personalization, gender, and social media: Gubernatorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20.

Meeks, L. (2013). A woman’s place: Gender politics and Twitter in the 2012 elections (doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle.

Meeks, L. (2016). Gendered Styles, Gendered Differences: Candidates’ Use of Per­sonalization and Interactivity on Twitter.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13.

Meeks, L. (2019). Owning your message: Congressional candidates’ interactivity and issue ownership in mixed-gender campaigns, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16:2, 187–202.

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). We Have Always Been Social. Social Media + Society. 1.

Ritzer, G., &  Jurgenson, N. G. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer, 10(1), SAG Journal.

Rosenberg, S. W., Bohan, L., McCafferty, P., & Kevin, H. (1986). The Image and the Vote: The Effect of Candidate Presentation on Voter Preference, American Journal of Political Science, 30 (1): 108–127.

Ross, K. (2002). Women’s Place in ‘Male’ Space: Gender and Effect in Parliamentary Contexts. Parliamentary Affairs 55 (1), 189–201.

Rovența-Frumușani, D. (2015). Images publiques et vies privées sur Facebook. Étude de cas : femmes politiques roumaines, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies and Environmental Communication, 2(4), 29–44.

Roventa-Frumusani, D., & Irimescu, A. (2018). Web 2.0 et la politique au féminin en Roumanie postcommuniste, Communication, 35/1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ communication.7636.

Rovența-Frumuşani, D., Rodat, S., & Branea, S. (2022). Gender and Multimodality in 2019 European Parliament Election Campaign. In: Novelli, E., Johansson, B., Wring, D. (Eds.). The 2019 European Electoral Campaign. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Sandberg, L. & Öhberg, P. (2017). The role of gender in online campaigning: Swedish candidate’s motives and use of social media during the European election 2014, Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 14.

Sanghvi, M., & Hodges, N. (2015). Marketing the female politician: an exploration of gender and appearance, Journal of Marketing Management, 31:15–16, 1676–1694.

Săvulescu, R., & A. Viţelar (2012). Pics or it didn’t happen: Analyzing Facebook photo­graphs of Romanian women politicians, Romanian Journal of Commu­nication and Public Relations, 1(14), 7–20.

Schneider, M. C. (2014a). Gender-Based Strategies on Candidate Websites, Journal of Political Marketing 13 (4), 264–290.

Schneider, M. C. (2014b). The Effects of Gender-Bending on Candidate Evaluations, Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (1), 55–77.

Volery, I., & Tersigny S. S. (2015). La masculinité hégémonique au crible de l’âge. Ce que les espaces d’animation fréquentés par les 9-13 ans nous disent des masculinités du capitalisme avancé , Genre, sexualité et société, 13.

Wagner, A., & Everitt, J. (2019). Introduction: Gender Identities and Political Commu­nication, In Gendered Mediation: Identity and Image Making in Canadian Poli­tics, Wagner, Angelia and Everitt, Joanna (Eds.). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Winfrey, K. L., & Schnoebelen, J. M. (2019). Running as a Woman (or Man), A Review of Research on Political Communicators and Gender Stereotypes, Review of Commu­nication Research, 109–138.

Yarchi, M., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2018). Women politicians are more engaging: male versus female politicians’ ability to generate users’ engagement on social media during an election campaign, Information, Communication & Society.

Elena-Irina I. Ghinet is a PhD student at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Journalism. Research interests in political, media, political communication and gender studies. Irina Ghineț is a Ph.D, Student at the Doctoral School of Communication Sciences, Faculty of Journalism and Communication Sciences, University of Bucharest, Romania. She has published articles on digital identity and media studies  She has worked in Public relations and communication. She is also a French translator (2021 – Vincent de Gaulejac: Nevroza de clasă, Traiectorie socială și conflicte de identitate, 2022 Rușinea, Ed. Philobia).

Manuscript was submitted: 19.09.2023.

Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 20.09.2023 till 26.09.2023.

Accepted: 27.09.2023.

Брой 57 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“, октомври 2023 г. се издава с финансовата помощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП4/72 от 16 декември 2022 г.

Issue 57 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (October 2023) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP4/72 of December 16, 2022.