This year’s presidential election is shaping up to be a watershed for the Internet and technology.
A few years ago, the presidential candidates had their own social media accounts.
Now, as the presidential campaigns and debates ramp up, they’re taking on new audiences, some of whom are strangers.
The two candidates are making the Internet their main battleground, while also taking advantage of the fact that technology is helping the two parties compete with each other.
A new study finds that voters with no Internet experience can be more than twice as likely to be turned off by candidates.
That’s because voters with limited social skills, including a lack of knowledge of politics and technology, are less likely to know what to expect from a candidate, the researchers say.
And as social-media users become more politically active, they also tend to become less likely than other voters to see an online presence as useful.
The study, which was published online on Aug. 14 in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, analyzed how candidates and their rivals respond to Facebook posts.
For the study, researchers asked participants to respond to four hypothetical posts, including one about a Democratic presidential candidate and two that focused on a Republican presidential candidate.
Both the Democrat and the Republican posts were in support of a presidential candidate, but one contained a link to a YouTube video with footage of the candidate’s wife, Melania Trump.
Participants were asked to rate the political content as trustworthy or not, as well as whether they viewed the video as newsworthy or not.
The researchers then divided the participants into four groups based on their level of Internet experience: a baseline group, which consisted of people who had never used social media, who reported no experience with social media or social media-specific apps, and a group of those who had used social-networking platforms, who were more tech-savvy.
After the researchers completed their analyses, they then analyzed the results for both the Clinton and Trump campaigns.
After they determined which candidate’s social-computing skills were more important than the candidate herself, the two candidates were almost evenly matched.
However, the Clinton campaign’s social media presence was not as effective as the Trump campaign’s, which is because Clinton has a far larger social media following.
In contrast, the Trump camp’s social presence was significantly stronger than that of the baseline group.
And the more people in each group viewed a video, the less likely they were to trust the candidate, even when they were told the candidate had used the platform to promote their campaign, the study found.
The research also found that candidates who relied more on social-platform platforms were less likely and less likely on average to see the video or the link to the video in which the candidate spoke.
Overall, the results of the study suggest that people with a low amount of online social skills tend to have less political and policy experience, and are more likely to distrust politicians and candidates who use social media platforms, such as the Clinton or Trump campaigns, the research found.
Even if a candidate’s platform is well-known and well-advertised, people with less social-tech skills are less able to evaluate the quality of the messages and the message is less effective, said study co-author Michael O’Sullivan, a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota.
This could be because people with fewer social-technology skills have less experience using these platforms, O’Sullivans research found, and also because some social-experience-related factors can’t be quantified, such a candidate can’t directly attribute it to their platform, he said.
“This is a big problem,” O’ Sullivan said.
“People aren’t doing the research, they don’t have the data, they can’t prove it.
I think that is the main problem we have with this election.”
The researchers found that a candidate who was using social-service-related platforms, including Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, LinkedIn and YouTube, was more likely than the baseline participant to see and to rate each candidate’s message as trustworthy.
But the Trump team had a higher level of trustworthiness.
People who were in the baseline participants’ social-network groups were also more likely not to trust Trump’s message, according to the study.
And while people in the Trump group were more likely in the analysis to trust a candidate on social media than those in the Clinton group, they were still less likely in their judgment of the message.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that the message of this election is going to be about trust,” O Sullivan said, referring to Trump.
If you want to be part of this discussion, get in touch with the researchers here, at FrontiersinPolitics.org.
Like us on Facebook to keep up with what’s going on in the world of psychology.
Follow the author at Twitter.com/sunday_hayes.