Suchergebnisse

ObjectiveStudies show that public service broadcasters narrow knowledge gaps between politically interested and disinterested because such contexts encourage incidental learning. This reasoning, however, fails to explain why gendered knowledge differences persist in environments that equalize learning. Using stereotype threat theory, I argue that news content emits symbolic gender cues that encourage or discourage women to become politically informed.MethodsEmploying European Election Study 2009 voter data (N = 27,000), and multilingual news content analyses from 27 E.U. member states, I test whether more egalitarian representation of women as newsmakers correlates with narrower gaps between men and women.ResultsAggregate and multilevel models show that greater representation of women as newsmakers correlates with smaller gaps in news exposure and political knowledge. Analyses also consider competing explanations such as women's electoral representation, education, labor force participation, and knowledge item guessing rates.ConclusionFindings support the theoretical expectations regarding symbolic cues and knowledge gaps.

Scholars studying the effects of political disagreement on participation have advanced competing propositions and mixed evidence to bear on whether disagreement in discussion networks either mobilizes or demobilizes voters. This article proposes that the seeming contradiction is due to different conceptual definitions of disagreement. Briefly, researchers have implicitly defined and measured disagreement in the respondents' political discussion network as either: (a) competition between points of view; or (b) opposition to a person's view. This article clarifies a distinction between two forms of disagreement, integrates past insights on its effects on turnout and tests the hypothesized effects of network composition on voting, in a nationally representative sample of US adults. Results demonstrate the differential effects of supportive, mixed and oppositional discussion networks on the likelihood of participation. Implications for future research are discussed in conclusion.

Theorists have long argued that discussing public affairs with others increases citizens' knowledge of politics. Yet, empirical tests of this claim reach contradictory results, with some studies reporting large effects of discussion on knowledge while others report small effects or fail to confirm the hypothesis. To account for this inconsistency, the current study meta-analyzes this literature. The results, based on 163 research findings from 134 independent studies ( N = 412,933), indicate positive and significant mean effect sizes of r = .15 for discussion frequency, r = .1 for discussion heterogeneity, and r = .18 for discussion network size. While all three effects are statistically significant, a meta-analytic relative weights analysis reveals that discussion heterogeneity explains little variance in political knowledge once discussion frequency and network size have been accounted for. In other words, how much citizens talk about politics matters much more than whom they talk to.

Although an association between congruent exposure to ideological news and affective polarization is well documented, we know little about the mechanisms underlying it. This article explores two possible mechanisms: (1) acceptance of media frames and (2) the effects on the audience's reasoning, specifically, their knowledge of claims supporting their and the other camp's positions. Mediation hypotheses were tested on data collected using an online survey of users of ideological and mainstream Israeli news websites (N = 788). Op-eds from these websites (N = 259) were content-analyzed to determine the frames used by ideological and mainstream websites. Results demonstrate that acceptance of frames plays a more important role than audience reasoning in mediating the effect of selective exposure on political polarization.