Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T06:23:10.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How Does Media Choice Affect Hostile Media Perceptions? Evidence from Participant Preference Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2015

Kevin Arceneaux
Affiliation:
Professor of Political Science, Behavioral Foundations Lab, Director, Institute for Public Affairs, Faculty Affiliate, Temple University, 453 Gladfelter Hall, 1115 Polett Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122, e-mail: [email protected].
Martin Johnson
Affiliation:
Kevin P. Reilly, Sr. Chair in Political Communication, Manship School of Mass Communication and Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University, Journalism Building, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, e-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

We investigate how selective exposure to various types of media shapes hostile media perceptions. We use an innovative experimental design that gauges the influence of viewers’ preferences for entertainment, partisan cable news, or mainstream broadcast news on their reactions to media content. This design represents a modification to the participant preference experiment used elsewhere, expanding a laboratory-based media environment to include partisan and mainstream news options, alongside entertainment programming. We find that people’s viewing preferences shape their reactions to news media content.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arceneaux, K., and Johnson, M. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., and Murphy, C. 2012. Polarized Political Communication, Oppositional Media Hostility, and Selective Exposure. The Journal of Politics 74 (01): 174–86.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., and Cryderman, J. 2013. Communication, Persuasion, and the Conditioning Value of Selective Exposure: Like Minds May Unite and Divide but They Mostly Tune Out. Political Communication 30 (2): 213–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, W. L., and Iyengar, S. 2008. A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication. Journal of Communication 58 (4): 707–31.Google Scholar
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., and Lenz, G. S. 2012. Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20 (3): 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Dallas: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., and Zhang, Y. 2008. Hostile News: Partisan Use and Perceptions of Cable News Programming. Journal of Communication 58 (2): 201–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L. 2011. The Opinion Factor: The Effects of Opinionated News on Information Processing and Attitude Change. Political Communication 28 (2): 163–81.Google Scholar
Goldberg, B. 2002. Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (2nd ed.). Perennial/HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. K., and Mutz, D. C. 2011. The Friendly Media Phenomenon: A Cross-National Analysis of Cross-Cutting Exposure. Political Communication 28 (1): 4266.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H., and Healy, M. J. R. 1995. The Graphical Presentation of a Collection of Means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 158: 175–77.Google Scholar
Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N. 1998. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Vintage Books USA.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J. R. and Theiss-Morse, E. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, J. M. 2012. Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, M. S. 2013. “Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 611–23.Google Scholar
Macias, C., Gold, P. B., Hargreaves, W. A., Aronson, E., Bickman, L., Barreira, P. J., Jones, D. R., Rodican, C. F. and Fisher, W. H. 2009. Preference in Random Assignment: Implications for the Interpretation of Randomized Trials. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 36 (5): 331–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maghsoodloo, S., and Huang, C.-Y. 2010. Comparing the Overlapping of Two Independent Confidence Intervals with a Single Confidence Interval for Two Normal Population Parameters. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140 (11): 32953305.Google Scholar
Prior, M. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stroud, N. J. 2008. Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure. Political Behavior 30 (3): 341–66.Google Scholar
Stroud, N. J. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. 2009. Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, D., Althaus, S. L., and Hibbing, M. V. 2011. Estimating Self-Reported News Exposure Across and Within Typical Days: Should Surveys Use More Refined Measures? Communication Methods and Measures 5 (4): 311–28.Google Scholar
Torgerson, D., and Sibbald, B. 1998. Understanding Controlled Trials: What Is a Patient Preference Trial. British Medical Journal 316 (7128): 360.Google Scholar
Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R. 1985. The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (3): 577.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Arceneaux and Johnson supplementary material

Arceneaux and Johnson supplementary material 1

Download Arceneaux and Johnson supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 188.7 KB