Search results

In this article, using two data sets, we examine whether place-based identity correlates with feelings toward journalists. Next, we examine whether the importance of a place-based identity moderates the relationship between place-based identity and feelings toward journalists. Finally, we examine the conditional indirect correlation between place-based identity and media use via feelings toward journalists, which may vary based on identity importance.

In this article we revisit the gateway hypothesis, which argues that political satire programs open the door to people using more hard news content. Using over-time survey data, we examine whether use of satire leads people to use more cable news. Although our cross-sectional analyses replicate previous results attempting to assess the gateway hypothesis, our over-time data suggest that satire does not lead to increased use of news programming on cable outlets. However, we did find support for the gateway hypothesis when looking at a mediation model where political attitudes serve as the intervening variable between satire use and cable news use.

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the relationship between verbal aggression and uncivil media attention on political flaming. More specifically, this paper examines whether the use of uncivil media programming is associated with the perceived acceptability and intention to engage in aggressive online discussions (i.e., online political flaming) and whether this relationship varies by verbal aggression. The results show that individuals less inclined to engage in aggressive communication tactics (i.e., low in verbal aggression) become more accepting of flaming and show greater intention to flame as their attention to uncivil media increases. By contrast, those with comparatively higher levels of verbal aggression show a decrease in acceptance and intention to flame as their attention to these same media increases. ; Advertising

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.

AbstractThis article attempts to connect literatures from the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model and cultural cognition theory. We do this by assessing the relationship between the two prominent cultural cognition variables (i.e., group and grid) and risk perceptions. We then examine whether these risk perceptions are associated with three outcomes important to the RISP model: information seeking, systematic processing, and heuristic processing, through a serial mediation model. We used 2015 data collected from 10 communities across the United States to test our hypotheses. Our results show that people high on group and low on grid (egalitarian communitarians) show greater risk perceptions regarding water quality issues. Moreover, these higher levels of perceived risk translate into increased information seeking, systematic processing of information, and lower heuristic processing through intervening variables from the RISP model (e.g., negative emotions and information insufficiency). These results extend the extant literature by expanding on the treatment of political ideology within the RISP model literature and taking a more nuanced approach to political beliefs in accordance with the cultural cognitions literature. Our article also expands on the RISP literature by looking at information‐processing variables.

Communication scholars have both lauded and questioned the Internet's role in facilitating democracy. However, few studies have examined aggressive communication behavior in online political discussion spaces. Two studies were conducted to examine use of aggressive discussion behaviors online, otherwise known as flaming. Study one utilized a survey of 289 undergraduate students at a large public university. Study two utilized a survey of 305 individuals who frequent political blogs. Results from both studies suggest that individuals are more likely to engage in political flaming when their beliefs are directly challenged. In addition, results indicate that whether an individual's identity is known or unknown did not influence their intention to flame within the student sample. In the blog-user sample, we found that direct challenges when identities were not known increased intention to flame. Finally, we examine the relationship between political flaming and several individual-level variables.

Much recent debate in political communication has centered on the influence of ideologically oriented media outlets. Some argue that the current media environment is creating partisan echo chambers, while others contend that today's political media afford citizens increased contact with a diverse range of opinion. The current study seeks to clarify relationships between political ideology, conservative cable TV news viewing (i.e., FOX News), and liberal cable TV news viewing (i.e., MSNBC), arguing that ideology serves as a suppressor of the relationship between the two seemingly disparate forms of cable TV news consumption. Analyses of primary 2009-2010 statewide survey data ( N = 305) reveal the relationship between FOX News and MSNBC consumption to be positive and this association increases substantially once the role of ideology as suppressor is addressed. A secondary analysis of 2010 PEW data ( N = 3,006) reveals a strong replication of the primary analysis results.

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.