Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T06:08:07.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subduing attitude polarization?

How partisan news may not affect attitude polarization for online publics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2018

Eulàlia P. Abril
Eulàlia P. Abril*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago
*
Correspondence: Eulàlia P. Abril, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007 W. Harrison St., 1152B BSB (MC 132), Chicago, IL 60607. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Researchers have sought to understand the effects of like-minded versus contrary news exposure on attitude polarization, which can be a threat to democracy. The online news environment offers opportunities for exposure to both types of news, albeit unequally. This study tests the effects of exposure to heterogeneous partisan news bundles (both like-minded and contrary news) on attitude polarization. Because media exposure can lead to bias, attitude polarization is tested as a direct and indirect effect via hostile media perceptions. Data in this study are from a between-subjects experimental design about the issue of assisted suicide. Results indicate that even though the effect of the partisan news bundle on hostile media perceptions is significant, both direct and indirect effects on attitude polarization are null.

Keywords

Partisan newsattitude polarizationhostile media perceptionsonline newsassisted suicide
Type
Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , Spring 2018 , pp. 68 - 77
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2018 

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

Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R., and Judd, C. M., “Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide,” Perspectives on Psychological Science , 2016, 10(2): 145–158.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, A., “The electoral roots of America’s dysfunctional government,” Presidential Studies Quarterly , 2013, 43(4): 709–731.Google Scholar
Wojcieszak, M., Bimber, B., Feldman, L., and Stroud, N. J., “Partisan news and political participation: Exploring mediated relationships,” Political Communication , 2015, 33(2): 241–260.Google Scholar
Stroud, N. J., “Polarization and partisan selective exposure,” Journal of Communication , 2010, 60(3): 556–576.Google Scholar
Ward, S. J. A., The Invention of Journalism Ethics: The Path to Objectivity and Beyond (Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Abril, E. P., “Can partisan news be valuable for discussion? An analysis of the effects of internal balance on online discussion intention,” International Journal of Communication , 2015, 9: 1029–1051, http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2319/1353, accessed January 31, 2018.Google Scholar
Schudson, M., Discovering the News (New York: Basic Books, 1978).Google Scholar
Sesno, F., “Talking it out: A conversation with George Stephanopoulos on politics, the media, and the art of interviewing,” International Journal Press/Politics , 2008, 13(3): 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Tremayne, M., Zheng, N., Kook Lee, J., and Jeong, J., “Issue publics on the web: Applying network theory to the war blogosphere,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 2006, 12(1): 290–310.Google Scholar
Brundidge, J., Garrett, R. K., Rojas, H., and Gil de Zúñiga, H., “Political participation and ideological news online: ‘Differential gains’ and ‘differential losses’ in a presidential election cycle,” Mass Communication & Society , 2014, 17(4): 464–486.Google Scholar
Wojcieszak, M., “‘Don’t talk to me’: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism,” New Media & Society , 2010, 12(4): 637–655.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. and Hahn, K. S., “Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use,” Journal of Communication , 2009, 59(1): 19–39.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. M., Wang, M., Gotlieb, M. R., Gabay, I., and Edgerly, S., “Ambivalence reduction and polarization in the campaign information environment: The interaction between individual- and contextual-level influences,” Communication Research , 2013, 40(3): 388–416.Google Scholar
McIntyre, K., Barnes, S. R., and Ruel, L., “The effects of online news package structure on attitude, attention, and comprehension,” Electronic News , 2016, 10(3): 178–193.Google Scholar
Leeper, T. J., “The informational basis for mass polarization,” Public Opinion Quarterly , 2014, 78(1): 27–46.Google Scholar
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Weeks, B., and Ardèvol-Abreu, A., “Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: Social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 22(3): 105–123.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center, “The modern news consumer: News attitudes and practices in the digital era,” July 2016, http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/, accessed January 31, 2018.Google Scholar
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., and Adamic, and L. A., “Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook,” Science , 2015, 348(6239): 1130–1132.Google Scholar
Brundidge, J., “Encountering ‘difference’ in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks,” Journal of Communication , 2010, 60(4): 680–700.Google Scholar
Garrett, R. K., “Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 2009, 14(2): 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, C. S. and Lodge, M., “Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs,” American Journal of Political Science , 2006, 50(3): 755–769.Google Scholar
Taber, C. S. and Cann, D., “The motivated processing of political arguments,” Political Behavior , 2009, 31(2): 137–155.Google Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R., “Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1979, 37(11): 2098–2109.Google Scholar
Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., and Bond, B. J. et al. , “Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming,” Journal of Communication , 2008, 58(2): 201–219.Google Scholar
Feldman, L., “The opinion factor: The Effects of opinionated news on information processing and attitude change,” Political Communication , 2011, 28(2): 163–181.Google Scholar
Feldman, L., “Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the hostile media effect,” Political Behavior , 2011, 33(3): 407–432.Google Scholar
Hallin, D. C. and Mancini, P., Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. and Page, D., State of the News Media 2015 (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2015).Google Scholar
Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R., “The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1985, 49(3): 577–585.Google Scholar
Gunther, A. C. and Christen, C. T., “Projection or persuasive press? Contrary effects of personal opinion and perceived news coverage on estimates of public opinion,” Journal of Communication , 2002, 52(1): 177–195.Google Scholar
Strate, J., Kiska, T., and Zalman, and M., “Who favors legalizing physician-assisted suicide? The vote on Michigan’s Proposal B,” Politics and the Life Sciences , 2001, 20(2): 155–163.Google Scholar
Svenson, A. G., “Montana’s courting of physician aid in dying, Could Des Moines follow suit?,” Politics and the Life Sciences , 2010, 29(2): 55–72.Google Scholar
Cappella, J. N., Kim, H. S., and Albarracín, D., “Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological motives and message characteristics,” Media Psychology , 2014, 18(3): 396–424.Google Scholar
Gunther, A. C., Christen, C. T., Liebhart, J. L., and Chia, S. C.-Y., “Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion,” Public Opinion Quarterly , 2001, 65(3): 295–320.Google Scholar
Fico, F., Richardson, J. D., and Edwards, S. M., “Influence of story structure on perceived story bias and news organization credibility,” Mass Communication & Society , 2004, 7(3): 301–318.Google Scholar
Gunther, A. C. and Christen, C. T., “Effects of news slant and base rate information on perceived public opinion,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 1999, 76(2): 277–292.Google Scholar
Abril, E. P. and Rojas, H., “Silencing political opinions: An assessment of the influence of geopolitical contexts in Colombia,” Communication Research , 45(1): 55–82.Google Scholar
Johnson, T. J. and Kaye, B. K., “The dark side of the boon? Credibility, selective exposure and the proliferation of online sources of political information,” Computers in Human Behavior , 2013, 29(4): 1862–1871.Google Scholar
Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonc, B., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F., “Political polarization on Twitter,” in Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Jacobson, G. C., A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People (New York: Pearson Longman, 2007).Google Scholar
Jamieson, K. H., Hardy, B. W., and Romer, D., “The effectiveness of the press in serving the needs of American democracy,” in A Republic Divided (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 21–51.Google Scholar
Rojas, H., Barnidge, M., and Abril, E. P., “Egocentric publics and corrective action,” Communication and the Public , 2016, 1(1): 27–38.Google Scholar
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., and Zickuhr, K., Social Media and Young Adults (Washington, DC: Pew Internet Research, 2010), http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/02/03/social-media-and-young-adults/, accessed January 31, 2018.Google Scholar
Tamborini, R., Weber, R., Eden, A., Bowman, N. D., and Grizzard, M., “Repeated exposure to daytime soap opera and shifts in moral judgment toward social convention,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 2010, 54(4): 621–640.Google Scholar
Morisi, D., Shaping voting intentions: An experimental study on the role of information in the Scottish independence referendum, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2014/88, September 2014.Google Scholar
La Raja, R. J. and Wiltse, D. L., “Don’t blame donors for ideological polarization of political parties,” American Politics Research , 2012, 40(3): 501–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, G., Carsey, T., Green, J., and Herrera, R., Party polarization and ‘conflict extension’ in American politics: The case of party activists, paper presented at the American Politics Workshop (Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2005), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.536.2163&rep=rep1&type=pdf, accessed January 31, 2018.Google Scholar
Ziegler, S. J. and Jackson, R. A., “Who’s not afraid of Proposal B? An analysis of exit-poll data from Michigan’s vote on physician-assisted suicide,” Politics and the Life Sciences , 2005, 23(1): 42–48.Google Scholar
Byock, I. R., Corbeil, Y. J., and Goodrich, M. E., “Beyond polarization, public preferences suggest policy opportunities to address aging, dying, and family caregiving,” American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine , 2009, 26(3): 200–208.Google Scholar
Holody, K. J., Framing Death: The Use of Frames in Newspaper Coverage of and Press Releases about Death with Dignity. M.Sc. thesis (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2006).Google Scholar
Pollock, J. A. and Yulis, S. G., “Nationwide newspaper coverage of physician-assisted suicide: A community structure approach,” Journal of Health Communication , 2004, 9(4): 281–307.Google Scholar
Weir, R., Abating treatment with critically ill patients: ethical and legal limits to the medical prolongation of life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
Christen, C. T. and Gunther, A. C., “The influence of mass media and other culprits on the projection of personal opinion,” Communication Research , 2003, 30(4): 414–431.Google Scholar
Wojcieszak, M., “Deliberation and attitude polarization,” Journal of Communication , 2011, 61(4): 596–617.Google Scholar
DeBonis, K., Blair, T. R., Payne, S. T., Wigan, K., and Kim, S., “Viability of a web-based module for teaching electrocardiogram reading skills to psychiatry residents: Learning outcomes and trainee interest,” Academic Psychiatry , 2015, 39(6): 645–648.Google Scholar
Gunther, A. C. and Chia, S. C.-Y., “Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 2001, 78(4): 688–701.Google Scholar
Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., and Liebhart, J. L., “Why partisans see mass media as biased,” Communication Research , 2004, 31(6): 623–641.Google Scholar
Gunther, A. C. and Storey, J. D., “The influence of presumed influence,” Journal of Communication , 2003, 53(2): 199–215.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F., 2016, http://www.afhayes.com, accessed January 31, 2018.Google Scholar
Keppel, G. and Wickens, T. D., Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004).Google Scholar
Garrett, R. K., Weeks, B. E., and Neo, R. L., “Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: How online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 2016, 21(5): 331–348.Google Scholar
Wojcieszak, M. and Rojas, H., “Correlates of party, ideology and issue based extremity in an era of egocentric publics,” International Journal of Press/Politics , 2011, 16(4): 488–507.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C., Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Abril, E. P., “Unmasking trolls: Political discussion on Twitter during the parliamentary elections in Catalonia,” Trípodos , 2016, 39: 53–69, http://www.eulaliapuigabril.net/uploads/7/3/9/5/73956117/abril2016_trolls.pdf, accessed January 27, 2018.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., and Shanahan, J., “Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement tool for public opinion research,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 2005, 17(3): 298–323.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Abril supplementary material

Appendix

Download Abril supplementary material(File)
File 41.2 KB