Suchergebnisse

This study investigates the impact of personalized news recommender system design on selective exposure, elaboration, and knowledge. Scholars have worried that proliferation of personalization technologies will degrade public opinion by isolating people from challenging perspectives. Informed by selective exposure research, this study examines personalized news recommender system designs using a communication mediation model. Recommender system design choices examined include computer-generated personalized recommendations, user-customized recommendations, and full or limited news information environments based on recommendations. Results from an online mock election experiment with Ohio adult Internet users indicate increased selective exposure when using personalized news systems. However, portals recommending news based on explicit user customization result in significantly higher counterattitudinal news exposure. Expected positive effects on elaboration and indirect effects on knowledge through elaboration are found only in personalized news recommender systems that display only recommended headlines. Lastly, personalized news recommender system use has a negative direct effect on knowledge.

In this study, we investigated the impact of personalized news web portals on selective exposure. Results from analyses of secondary survey data from national random samples of U.S. adults show a positive relationship between personalized news and increased exposure to offline news. Users of personalized news report viewing more sources and categories of news online compared with nonusers. Partisan users of personalized news do not report increased partisan news exposure. No difference in preferences for perspective sharing or challenging news sources is found between personalized news users and nonusers. The implications for future research on personalized information systems and selective exposure are discussed.

Internet access provides a number of ways to read, share, and discuss politics. However, the political benefits from technology are most likely afforded to those with greater Internet skill, political interest, and education. This study used nationally representative cross-sectional survey data collected during the 2016 U.S. general election to investigate two online news behaviors. Guided by research on digital inequalities, the opportunities–motivation–ability framework, and communication gaps, we found that Internet skill and political interest, but not education, are related to greater online news reading and sharing. We also found conditional relationships between Internet skill and online news behaviors that were moderated by political interest and education. Skill-based digital inequalities in online news behaviors are exacerbated for those with greater political interest, but the gap is reduced for those with less education. We discuss the threat and opportunity that a digital skill communication gap poses for online citizen engagement.

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment ( N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

Abstract: In this paper, we examine media use in the aftermath of the 2004, 2012, and 2020 presidential elections in the United States. Specifically, we test whether members of the party who won the election bask in reflected glory (BIRG; i.e., seek out pro-attitudinal media after preferred candidate wins) or whether members of the losing party cut off reflected failure (CORF; i.e., cut off ties with their party after a loss by decreasing their use of pro-attitudinal media). We also examine whether individuals whose candidate lost use pro-attitudinal media to repair their identity, or engage in information utility behaviors by seeking out counter-attitudinal information to learn about the opposing party following their win. Using two waves of survey data from the 2004, 2012, and 2020 US presidential elections, we find support for the BIRGing hypothesis. However, we did not find support for any of the hypotheses associated with losing the elections.

In this article, we test a dynamic intracommunication process looking at the relationships between interpersonal discussion, perceived credibility of partisan media, and partisan media use. Using the theoretical foundation of hostile media perceptions, with a specific focus on relative hostile media, we examine whether interpersonal communication affects perceived credibility of liberal and conservative media outlets and whether these effects translate into increased use or avoidance of partisan media outlets. Using data collected during the 2016 U.S. election, we find that supportive interpersonal discussion is associated with greater perceived credibility of liberal media outlets (e.g., MSNBC) among liberals, which results in increased use of liberal leaning news outlets. In addition, we find that discussion with those who hold opposing views is associated with increased perceived credibility of conservative media outlets (e.g., Fox News) among conservatives, which translates into greater use of conservative leaning outlets. Similarly, talking to those who hold opposing views decreases perceived credibility of liberal media outlets (e.g., MSNBC) among conservatives, resulting in decreased use of liberal leaning outlets.

The goals of this study are to explore several claims about the democratizing potential of the internet and to extend gatekeeping theory into user-generated content (UGC) domain. A quantitative content analysis of the most popular YouTube political news videos during the 2008 US presidential election was conducted to investigate the degree to which nonelites were able to partake in mainstream public discourse. We found that elites dominated first and second filters (news sourcing and news production) in the flow of online news, while nonelites dominated the third filter (news distribution). These results suggest that an update to the traditional gatekeeping model is needed to reflect the realities of today's user-driven communication environment.

Social media users are able to read, share, and discuss news online with other people coming from diverse contexts in their lives, including family members, co-workers, and friends. Past research has indicated that "context collapse" occurs when people must imagine and negotiate interacting with a large and diverse online audience. Using survey data from 771 US Internet users, we find that more context collapse in people's Facebook friends is positively related to both sharing and reading news. Furthermore, reading news on Facebook mediates the relationship between context collapse and news sharing. Finally, privacy management moderates the relationship between reading and sharing news on Facebook, where people who are more open in their privacy management practices share more news.

Scholars have emphasized the importance of an informed citizenry for a healthy democracy. As a result, research has examined whether campaign information fosters positive or negative democratic outcomes. This article examines the relationship between information seeking and skepticism. We also examine whether skepticism leads to democratically beneficial outcomes. We examine these relationships using survey data collected during the course of the 2012 Presidential Election. We found an over-time relationship between campaign information seeking and skepticism. We also found that skepticism leads to increased knowledge at the end of the election through information seeking.