Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Visual Political Communication
  4. Volume 10, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 2633-3732
  • E-ISSN: 2633-3740

Abstract

During the 2016 US presidential primary debate cycle, CBS displayed tweets alongside presidential candidates on-screen. Using the elaboration likelihood model and social identity theory, the current study reveals the incorporation of Twitter comments and metrics may have hindered normative outcomes of debate viewing. A mixed-method approach consisting of content analysis and an eye-tracking intervention was used to understand the effects of including socially networked information in televised debates. Findings show that including information from social media on-screen appeared to displace elaborative energy, limiting what viewers learned about candidate policies, and leaving them feeling disillusioned about politics. Polarization seemed to increase, while viewing tweets on-screen also related to being less persuaded by candidates. The inclusion of on-screen social media visuals during televised debates may overwhelm the viewer’s ability to process and retain democratic information.

© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jvpc_00029_1
2024-03-06
2025-03-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahn, S. J. G., Nowak, K. L. and Bailenson, J. N. (2022), ‘Unintended consequences of spatial presence on learning in virtual reality’, Computers & Education, 186, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104532.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J. and Verser, R. M. (2003), ‘A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates’, Communication Monographs, 70:4, pp. 335–50, http://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000179133.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S. and Stephenson, M. T. (2002), ‘Effects of watching primary debates in the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign’, Journal of Communication, 52:2, pp. 316–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02547.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergen, L., Grimes, T. and Potter, D. (2005), ‘How attention partitions itself during simultaneous message presentations’, Human Communication Research, 31:3, pp. 311–36, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00874.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J. W. and Fischer, F. (2014), ‘Inferring mindful cognitive-processing of peer-feedback via eye-tracking: Role of feedback characteristics, fixation-durations and transitions’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31:5, pp. 422–34, http://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12091.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brechman, J. M., Bellman, S., Robinson, J. A., Treleaven-Hassard, S. and Varan, D. (2015), ‘Which ticker format works best? Effects of updating and scrolling news content on viewer memory and program engagement’, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92:4, pp. 970–85, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015604851.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Camaj, L. and Northup, T. (2019), ‘Dual-screening the candidate image during presidential debates: The moderating role of Twitter and need to evaluate for the effects on candidate perceptions’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63:1, pp. 20–38, http://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1574117.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chadwick, A., O’Loughlin, B. and Vaccari, C. (2017), ‘Why people dual screen political debates and why it matters for democratic engagement’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61:2, pp. 220–39, https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1309415.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, H. T. (2021), ‘Second screening and the engaged public: The role of second screening for news and political expression in an O-S-R-O-R model’, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98:2, pp. 526–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019866432.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis, C. J., Bowers, J. S. and Memon, A. (2011), ‘Social influence in televised election debates: A potential distortion of democracy’, PloS One, 6:3, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018154.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., Goodman, J. A. and Blanchar, J. C. (2012), ‘Low-effort thought promotes political conservatism’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38:6, pp. 808–20, http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212439213.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, S. L. and Ford, J. K. (2006), ‘Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes’, Personnel Psychology, 51:2, pp. 397–420, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00731.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gerber, A. and Green, D. (1999), ‘Misperceptions about perceptual bias’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2:1, pp. 189–210, http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev/polisci.2.1.189.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W. and Krull, D. S. (1988), ‘On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54:5, pp. 733–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gong, Z. H. and Bucy, E. P. (2016), ‘When style obscures substance: Visual attention to display appropriateness in the 2012 presidential debates’, Communication Monographs, 83:3, pp. 349–72, http://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015/1119868.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gottfried, J., Hardy, B., Holbert, L., Winneg, K. and Jamieson, K. (2017), ‘The changing nature of political debate consumption: Social media, multi-tasking, and knowledge acquisition’, Political Communication, 34:2, pp. 172–99, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1154120.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Houston, J. B., McKinney, M. S., Hawthorne, J. and Spialek, M. L. (2013), ‘Frequency of tweeting during presidential debates: Effect on debate attitudes and knowledge’, Communication Studies, 64:5, pp. 548–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.832693.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Huber, B., Gil de Zuniga, H., Diehl, T. and Liu, J. (2019), ‘Effects of second screening: Building social media social capital through dual screen use’, Human Communication Research, 45:3, pp. 334–65, https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz004.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Iyengar, S., Sood, G. and Lelkes, Y. (2012), ‘Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 76:3, pp. 405–31, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jennings, F. J. (2019), ‘An uninformed electorate: Identity-motivated elaboration, partisan cues, and learning’, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47:5, pp. 527–47, https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1679385.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Jennings, F. J., Bramlett, J. C., McKinney, M. S. and Hardy, M. M. (2020), ‘Thinking along partisan lines: Identity-motivated elaboration and presidential debates’, Social Media + Society, 6:4, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120965518.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Jennings, F. J., Bramlett, J. C. and Warner, B. R. (2019), ‘Comedic cognition: The impact of elaboration on political comedy effects’, Western Journal of Communication, 83:3, pp. 365–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2018.1541476.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Jennings, F. J., Coker, C. R., McKinney, M. S. and Warner, B. R. (2017), ‘Tweeting presidential primary debates: Debate processing through motivated Twitter instruction’, American Behavioral Scientist, 61:4, pp. 455–74, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217704867.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Jennings, F. J. and Russell, F. M. (2019), ‘Civility, credibility, and health information: The impact of uncivil comments and source credibility on attitudes about vaccines’, Public Understanding of Science, 28:4, pp. 417–32, http://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519837901.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jones, D. A. (2002), ‘The polarizing effect of new media messages’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14:2, pp. 158–74, http://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/14.2.158.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kätsyri, J., Kinnumen, T., Kusumoto, K., Oittinen, P. and Ravaja, N. (2016), ‘Negativity bias in media multitasking: The effects of negative social media messages on attention to television news broadcasts’, PLoS One, 11:5, pp. 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153712.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kenski, K. (2003), ‘Testing political knowledge: Should knowledge questions use two response categories or four?’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15:2, pp. 192–200, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.2.192.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, Y. M. and Garrett, K. (2012), ‘On-line and memory-based: Revisiting the relationship between candidate evaluation processing models’, Political Behavior, 34, pp. 345–68, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9158-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. King, A. J., Bol, N., Cummins, R. G. and John, K. K. (2019), ‘Improving visual behavior research in communication science: An overview, review, and reporting recommendations for using eye-tracking methods’, Communication Methods and Measures, 13:3, pp. 149–77, http://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1558194.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kipp, M. (2012), ‘Multimedia annotation, querying and analysis in ANVIL’, in M. T. Maybury (ed.), Video, Audio, and Imagery Analysis for Search, Data Mining, Surveillance and Authoring, Wiley: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 351–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kreiss, D. and McGregor, S. C. (2018), ‘Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S. presidential cycle’, Political Communication, 35:2, pp. 155–77, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1364814.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kunda, Z. (1990), ‘The case for motivated reasoning’, Psychological Bulletin, 108:3, pp. 480–98, http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lang, A. (1995), ‘Defining audio/video redundancy from a limited-capacity information processing perspective’, Communication Research, 22:1, pp. 86–115, https://doi.org/10.1177/009365095022001004.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Lang, A. (2006), ‘Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages’, Journal of Communication, 56:suppl1, pp. S57–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lang, A., Zhou, S., Schwartz, N., Bolls, P. D. and Potter, R. F. (2000), ‘The effects of edits on arousal, attention, and memory for television messages: When an edit is an edit can an edit be too much?’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44:1, pp. 94–109, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem44017.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Landreville, K. D., White, C. and Allen, S. (2015), ‘Tweets, polls, and quotes: Gatekeeping and bias in on-screen visuals during the final 2012 presidential debate’, Communication Studies, 66:2, pp. 146–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2014.930919.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Levine, A. S. (2020), ‘Twitter “a partner” for tonight’s debate as Bloomberg pushes social media limits’, Politico, 25 February, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2020/02/25/twitter-a-partner-for-tonights-debate-as-bloomberg-pushes-social-media-limits-785637. Accessed 22 December 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. McKinney, M. S. (2021), ‘Presidential campaign debates in the 2020 elections: Debate scholarship and the future of presidential debates’, Argumentation and Advocacy, 57:3–4, pp. 149–56, https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1963526.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. McKinney, M. S. and Carlin, D. B. (2004), ‘Political campaign debates’, in L. L. Kaid (ed.), Handbook of Political Communication Research, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, pp. 203–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. McKinney, M. S., Houston, J. B. and Hawthorne, J. (2014), ‘Social watching a 2012 Republican primary debate’, American Behavioral Scientist, 58:4, pp. 556–73, http://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213506211.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. McKinney, M. S., Kaid, L. L. and Robertson, T. A. (2001), ‘The front-runner, contenders, and also-rans: Effects of watching a 2000 republican primary debate’, American Behavioral Scientist, 44:12, pp. 2232–51, http://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121958294.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. McKinney, M. S. and Warner, B. R. (2013), ‘Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects’, Argumentation and Advocacy, 49:4, pp. 238–58, http://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2013.11821800.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. McKinney, M. S. and Rill, L. A. (2009), ‘Not your parents’ presidential debates: Examining the effects of the CNN/YouTube debates on young citizen’s civic engagement’, Communication Studies, 60:4, pp. 392–406, https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970903110001.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Mundorf, N., Drew, D., Zillmann, D. and Weaver, J. (1990), ‘Effects of disturbing news on recall of subsequently presented news’, Communication Research, 17:5, pp. 601–15, https://doi.org/10.1177/009365090017005002.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M. and Peterson, E. (2002), ‘Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24:1, pp. 15–26, http://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2401_2.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Neely, A. (2020), ‘Apple news accepting questions for the new Hampshire democratic debate’, Apple Insider, https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/02/05/apple-news-accepting-questions-for-the-new-hampshire-democratic-debate. Accessed 18 February 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Nicholson, S. P. (2011), ‘Polarizing cues’, American Journal of Political Science, 56:1, pp. 52–66, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Olivola, C. Y. and Todorov, A. (2010), ‘Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting’, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34:2, pp. 83–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Parmelee, J. H. and Bichard, S. L. (2011), Politics and the Twitter Revolution: How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1984), ‘The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46:1, pp. 69–81, http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986), ‘The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, pp. 123–205, http://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ponder. J. D. and Haridakis, P. (2015), ‘Selectively social politics: The differing roles of media use on political discussion’, Mass Communication and Society, 18:3, pp. 281–302, http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.940977.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Ran, W. and Yamamoto, M. (2019), ‘Media multitasking, second screening, and political knowledge: Task-relevant and task-irrelevant second screening during electronic news consumption’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63:1, pp. 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1565659.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002), ‘Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making’, The Journal of Politics, 64:4, pp. 1021–44, http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00161.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. and Emmerson, K. M. (2010), ‘The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”?’, Political Psychology, 31:4, pp. 563–93, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J. and Brajkovich, G. (2001), ‘Generalization of mere exposure effects to averaged composite faces’, Social Cognition, 19:1, pp. 57–70, http://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.1.57.18961.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E. and Brossard, D. (2007), ‘My friend’s enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates’, Communication Research, 34:1, pp. 3–24, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206296079.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Schiffer, A. J. (2017), ‘Debates and partisan enthusiasm before the 2012 Republican primaries’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47:2, pp. 293–310, http://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12369.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Seiter, J. S. and Weger, H. (2020), Nonverbal Communication in Political Debates, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Shah, D. V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E. P., Wells, C. and Quevedo, V. (2015), ‘The power of television images in a social media age linking biobehavioral and computational approaches via the second screen’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659:1, pp. 225–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Stelter, B. (2015), ‘CBS Democratic debate: 8.5 million viewers’, CNN, 15 November, http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/15/media/cbs-democratic-debate-ratings/. Accessed 18 February 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Stelter, B. (2016), ‘CBS Republican debate: Highest rating this year’, CNN, 14 February, http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/14/media/cbs-republican-debate-ratings/. Accessed 18 February 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Stewart, M. (2020), ‘Live tweeting, reality TV and the nation’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 23:3, pp. 352–67, https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877919887757.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Stewart, P. A. (2023), The Audience Decides: Applause-Cheering, Laughter, and Booing during Debates in the Trump Era, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Dye, R. G., Eidelman, S. and Wicks, R. H. (2017), ‘Visual presentation style 2: Influences on perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton based on visual presentation style during the third 2016 presidential debate’, American Behavioral Scientist, 61:5, pp. 545–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Stewart, P. A. and Schubert, J. N. (2006), ‘Taking the “low road” with subliminal advertisements: A study testing the effect of precognitive prime “RATS” in a 2000 presidential advertisement’, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11:4, pp. 103–14, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1081180X06293938.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Sülflow, M., Schäfer, S. and Winter, S. (2019), Selective attention in the news feed: An eye-tracking study on the perception and selection of political news posts on Facebook’, New Media & Society, 21:1, pp. 168–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818791520.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Tajfel, H. (1959), ‘Quantitative judgement in social perception’, British Journal of Psychology, 50:1, pp. 16–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1959.tb00677.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986), ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behavior’, in W. G. Worchel and W. G. Austin (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall, pp. 7–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. and Wetherell, M. S. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Twitter, Inc. (2016), ‘Twitter and CBS News announce live streaming partnership for Republican and Democratic National Conventions’, PR News Wire, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-and-cbs-news-announce-live-streaming-partnership-for-republican-and-democratic-national-conventions-300296328.html. Accessed 27 October 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Warner, B. R., Bramlett, J. C., Hoeun, S., Manik, D. I. and Bolton, J. P. (2018), ‘Presidential primary debates compared: Timing of debate and size of candidate field as moderators of debate effects’, Argumentation and Advocacy, 54:1–2, pp. 122–38, https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2018.1446868.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Warner, B. R., McKinney, M. S., Bramlett, J. C., Jennings, F. J. and Funk, M. E. (2020), ‘Reconsidering partisanship as a constraint on the persuasive effects of campaign debates’, Communication Monographs, 87:2, pp. 137–57, https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1641731.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Wells, C., Van Thomme, J., Maurer, P., Hanna, A., Pevehouse, J., Shah, D. V. and Bucy, E. (2016), ‘Coproduction or cooptation? Real-time spin and social media response during the 2012 French and US presidential debates’, French Politics, 14:2, pp. 206–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R. and Judd, C. M. (2015), ‘Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide’, Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10:2, pp. 145–58, http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569849.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Wicks, R. H., Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Eidelman, S. and Dye, R. G. (2017), ‘Visual presentation style 1: A test of visual presentation styles and candidate evaluation during the first 2016 presidential debate’, American Behavioral Scientist, 61:5, pp. 533–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Yardi, S. and boyd, d. (2010), ‘Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter’, Bulleting of Science, Technology & Society, 30:5, pp. 316–27, http://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Yawn, M., Ellsworth, K., Beatty, B. and Kahn, K. F. (1998), ‘How a presidential primary debate changed attitudes of audience members’, Political Behavior, 20:2, pp. 155–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Zajonc, R. B. (1968), ‘Attitudinal effects of mere exposure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9:2–3, pp. 1–27, http://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Zheng, P. and Shain, S. (2020), ‘Live tweeting live debates: How Twitter reflects and refracts the US political climate in a campaign season’, Information, Communication & Society, 23:3, pp. 337–57, https://doi.org//10.1080/1369118X.2018.1503697.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Zhou, S. (2004), ‘Effects of visual intensity and audiovisual redundancy in bad news’, Media Psychology, 6:3, pp. 237–56, https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0603_1.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/jvpc_00029_1
Loading
Visual overload: The influence of broadcast social media visuals on televised debate viewing outcomes
Journal of Visual Political Communication 10, 151 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1386/jvpc_00029_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jvpc_00029_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jvpc_00029_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): campaigns; cognition; content analysis; eye-tracking; political opinions; presidential debates; Twitter

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test