Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T07:53:32.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Media and Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Thomas E. Nelson ,
Sarah M. Bryner  and
Dustin M. Carnahan
Edited by
James N. Druckman ,
Donald P. Greene ,
James H. Kuklinski  and
Arthur Lupia
Thomas E. Nelson
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Sarah M. Bryner
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Dustin M. Carnahan
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Donald P. Greene
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

Nobody needs another summary of mass media research right now; there are plenty of fine, current surveys of the field (Kinder 2003). Our chapter discusses specifically how experimental research provides insight into the relationship between the media and the political world. We are especially interested in important questions that experimentation is well suited to address. Experimentation has been vital to the development of scholarship in this area, but we should also recognize when it is best to step away and choose another method.

Causation and experimentation go together hand in glove, and questions of causation are paramount in both lay and scholarly thought about the media (Iyengar 1990). Questions about the social, economic, and organizational factors that determine mass media content are certainly fascinating and relevant in their own right. One can argue, however, that such questions eventually beget questions about the ultimate impact of that content on individuals and political processes and institutions.

As an example of the promise and limitation of experimentation in mass media research, consider the media's constant bugbear: public perceptions of ideological bias in the news. The usual form of this complaint is that media organizations subtly stump for liberal causes (Goldberg 2001). Although this complaint often amounts to little more than strategic bluster, it is conceivable that the increasing differentiation of the media marketplace will encourage news organizations to become more forthright in displaying overt liberal or conservative commentary (Dalton, Beck, and Huckfeldt 1998).

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science , pp. 201 - 213
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Althaus, Scott L., and Tewksbury, David. 2000. “Patterns of Internet and Traditional News Media Use in a Networked Community.” Political Communication 17: 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Craig A., Lindsay, James J., and Bushman, Brad J.. 1999. “Research in the Psychological Laboratory: Truth or Triviality?” Current Directions in Psychological Science 8: 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoli, Virginia, and Worchel, Stephen. 1978. “Effects of Media, Communicator, and Message Position on Attitude Change.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42: 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, Elliot. 1977. “Research in Social Psychology as a Leap of Faith.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3: 190–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, Solomon E. 1955. “Opinions and Social Pressure.” Scientific American 193: 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1993. “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure.” American Political Science Review 87: 267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Matthew A. 2003. “Soft News and Political Knowledge: Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence?” Political Communication 20: 173–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behr, Roy L., and Iyengar, Shanto. 1985. “Television News, Real-World Cues, and Changes in the Public Agenda.” Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettcher, William A., III 2004. “The Prospects for Prospect Theory: An Empirical Evaluation of International Relations Applications of Framing and Loss Aversion.” Political Psychology 25: 331–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brader, Ted. 2005. “Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions.” American Journal of Political Science 49: 388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braverman, Julia. 2008. “Testimonials versus Informational Persuasive Messages: The Moderating Effect of Delivery Mode and Personal Involvement.” Communication Research 35: 666–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, John T., and Petty, Richard E.. 1982. “The Need for Cognition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, Erin, Weber, Christopher, Hauser, David, and Nutt, Steven. 2010. “Media, Framing, and Public Opinion: How Does YouTube Fit In?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Dalton, Russell J., Beck, Paul A., and Huckfeldt, Robert. 1998. “Partisan Cues and the Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review 92: 111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denton, Frank, and Thorson, Esther. 1998. “Effects of a Multimedia Public Journalism Project on Political Knowledge and Attitudes.” In Assessing Public Journalism, eds. Lambeth, Edmund B., Meyer, Philip, and Thorson, Esther. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 143–78.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23: 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2003. “The Power of Television Images: The First Kennedy-Nixon Debate Revisited.” Journal of Politics 65: 559–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Eron, Leonard D. 2001. “Seeing Is Believing: How Viewing Violence Alters Attitudes and Aggressive Behavior.” In Constructive and Destructive Behavior: Implications for Family, School, and Society, eds. Bohart, Arthur C. and Stipek, Deborah J.. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eveland, William P.., and Dunwoody, Sharon. 2002. “An Investigation of Elaboration and Selective Scanning as Mediators of Learning from the Web versus Print.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 46: 34–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Bernard. 2001. Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Washington, DC: Regnery.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunther, Albert C. 1992. “Biased Press or Biased Public? Attitudes towards Media Coverage of Social Groups.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56: 147–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, James. 2004. All the News That's Fit to Sell: How the Market Transforms Information into News. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Shirley S., and McLeod, Douglas M.. 2008. “Social-Psychological Influences on Opinion Expression in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication.” Communication Research 35: 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbert, R. Lance, and Hansen, Glenn J.. 2008. “Stepping beyond Message Specificity in the Study of Emotion as Mediator and Inter-Emotion Associations across Attitude Objects: Fahrenheit 9/11, Anger, and Debate Superiority.” Media Psychology 11: 98–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Robert A., and Hill, Timothy. 2005. “Agenda-Setting and Priming in Prime Time Television: Crime Dramas as Political Cues.” Political Communication 22: 277–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and Lapinski, John S.. 2008. “Testing the Implicit–Explicit Model of Racialized Political Communication.” Perspectives on Politics 6: 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1990. “The Accessibility Bias in Politics: Television News and Public Opinion.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Hahn, Kyu S.. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communications 59: 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Marcia K. 2007. “Reality Monitoring and the Media.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 21: 981–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaku, Michio. 2008. Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Kim, Young Mie, and Vishak, John. 2008. “Just Laugh! You Don't Need to Remember: The Effects of Entertainment Media on Political Information Acquisition and Information Processing in Political Judgment.” Journal of Communication 58: 338–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 2003. “Communication and Politics in the Age of Information.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, eds. Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Jervis, Robert. New York: Oxford University Press, 357–93.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 2007. “Curmudgeonly Advice.” Journal of Communication 57: 155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohut, Andrew. 2008. “The Internet Gains in Politics.” Pew Internet and American Life Project. January 11. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Internet-Gains-in-Politics.aspx (November 7, 2010).
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Shaw, Donald L.. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, William J. 1983. “A Contextualist Theory of Knowledge: Its Implications for Innovation and Reform in Psychological Research.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. vol. 16, ed. Berkowitz, Leonard. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–47.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2008. “Racial Priming: Issues in Research Design and Interpretation.” Perspectives on Politics 6: 135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1995. “Newspaper and Political Awareness.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 513–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C., and Reeves, Byron. 2005. “The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust.” American Political Science Review 99: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91: 567–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Oxley, Zoe M., and Clawson, Rosalee A.. 1997. “Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects.” Political Behavior 19: 221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuman, W.Russell, Marion R. Just, and Crigler, Ann N.. 1992. Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E. 1993. Out of Order. New York: A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Postmes, Tom, Spears, Russell, and Sakhel, Khaled. 2001. “Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27: 1243–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prensky, Marc. 2001. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On The Horizon 9: 1–6.Google Scholar
Price, Vincent, and Tewksbury, David. 1997. “News Values and Public Opinion: A Theoretical Account of Media Priming and Framing.” In Progress in the Communication Sciences, eds. Barnett, G. and Boster, F. J.. Greenwich, CT: Ablex, 173–212.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2003. “Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preference on Political Knowledge.” Political Communication 20: 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., and Sellers, Patrick J., eds. 2009. Winning with Words: The Origins and Impact of Framing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sicilia, Maria, Ruiz, Salvador, and Munuera, Jose L.. 2005. “Effects of Interactivity in a Web Site: The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition.” Journal of Advertising 34: 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Ismail. 2007. “When Race Matters and When It Doesn't: Racial Group Differences in Response to Racial Cues.” American Political Science Review 101: 339–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Paul H., and Harkins, Stephen G.. 1994. “Race of Source Effects in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 790–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, Peter A. 1990. “Ideas about Causation in Philosophy and Psychology.” Psychological Bulletin 108: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winograd, Morely, and Hais, Michael D.. 2009. Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Wise, Kevin, Bolls, Paul D., and Schaefer, Samantha R.. 2008. “Choosing and Reading Online News: How Available Choice Affects Cognitive Processing.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 52: 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×