Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:20:50.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2007

DIANA C. MUTZ
DIANA C. MUTZ
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do Americans acquire the impression that their political foes have some understandable basis for their views, and thus represent a legitimate opposition? How do they come to believe that reasonable people may disagree on any given political controversy? Given that few people talk regularly to those of opposing perspectives, some theorize that mass media, and television in particular, serve as an important source of exposure to the rationales for oppositional views. A series of experimental studies suggests that television does, indeed, have the capacity to encourage greater awareness of oppositional perspectives. However, common characteristics of televised political discourse—incivility and close-up camera perspectives—cause audiences to view oppositional perspectives as less legitimate than they would have otherwise. I discuss the broader implications of these findings for assessments of the impact of television on the political process, and for the perspective that televised political discourse provides on oppositional political views.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 101 , Issue 4 , November 2007 , pp. 621 - 635
Copyright
© 2007 by the American Political Science Association

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

Anderson Christopher J., Andre Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Ola Listhaug. 2005. Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baum Matthew A. 2003. Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the New Media Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bowler Shaun, and Todd Donovan. 2003. “The Effects of Winning and Losing on Attitudes about Political Institutions and Democracy in the United States.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Bradley Margaret M., Mark K. Greenwald, Margaret C. Petry, and Peter J. Lang. 1992. “Remembering Pictures: Pleasure and Arousal in Memory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18 (May): 379– 90.Google Scholar
Calhoun Craig. 1988. “Populist Politics, Communications Media and Large Scale Societal Integration.” Sociological Theory 6 (Autumn): 219– 41.Google Scholar
Campbell Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Christianson Sven A. 1986. “Effects of Positive Emotional Events on Memory.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 27 (December): 287– 99.Google Scholar
Carlo Perris and Gunnar Tjellden. 1986. “Psychological Versus Physiological Determinants of Emotional Arousal and Its Relationship to Laboratory-Induced Amnesia.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 27 (December): 300– 10.Google Scholar
Eisenstein Sergei M. 1940/1974. In Au-dela des etoiles, ed and trans. Jacques Aumont En Gros Plan. Paris: Union Generale d'Editions.
Fearon James. 1998. “Deliberation as Discussion.” In Deliberative Democracy, ed. Jon Elster. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fiorina Morris P. 1999. “Whatever Happened to the Median Voter?” Paper presented at the MIT Conference on Parties and Congress, Cambridge, MA.
Real vs. Fictional Violence and Consequent Effects on Aggression and Emotional Arousal.” Journal of Research in Personality 9 (December): 270– 81.
Gilbert Daniel T. 1991. “How Mental Systems Believe.” American Psychologist 46 (February): 107– 19.Google Scholar
Gilligan Stephen G., and Gordon H. Bower. 1984. “Cognitive Consequences of Emotional Arousal.” In Emotion, Cognition and Behavior, ed. Carroll Izard, Jerome Kagan, and Robert Boleslaw Zajonc. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hetherington Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95 (September): 619– 31.Google Scholar
Hibbing John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: American's Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hopkins Robert, and James E. Fletcher. 1994. “Electrodermal Measurement: Particularly Effective for Forecasting Message Influence on Sales Appeal.” In Measuring Psychological Responses to Media Messages, ed. Annie Lang. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jacobson Gary. 2007. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. New York: Pearson Longman.
Jacobson Gary. 2000. “The Electoral Basis of Partisan Polarization in Congress.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Lang Annie. 2000. “The Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message Processing.” Journal of Communication 50 (March): 46– 70.Google Scholar
Loftus Elizabeth F., and Terrence E. Burns. 1982. “Mental Shock Can Produce Retrograde Amnesia.” Memory and Cognition 10 (July): 318– 23.Google Scholar
Lombard Matthew. 1995. “Direct Responses to People on the Screen: Television and Personal Space.” Communication Research 22 (June): 288– 324.Google Scholar
Lombard Matthew, Robert D. Reich, Mary E. Grabe, Cheryl C. Bracken, and Theresa B. Ditton. 2000. “Presence and Television: The Role of Screen Size.” Human Communication Research 26 (January): 75– 98.Google Scholar
McHugo Gregory J., John T. Lanzetta, Denis G. Sullivan, Roger D. Masters, and Basil G. Englis. 1985. “Emotional Reactions to a Political Leader's Expressive Displays.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (6): 1512– 23.Google Scholar
Mendelberg Tali. 2002. “The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence.” In Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation: Research in Micropolitics, Volume 6, ed. Michael X. Delli Carpini, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Y. Shapiro. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Messaris Paul. 1994. Visual “Literacy”: Image, Mind and Reality. Boulder: Westview Press.
Meyrowitz Joshua. 1986. No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. New York: Oxford.
Middlemist R. Dennis, Eric S. Knowles, and Charles F. Matter. 1976. “Personal Space Invasions in the Lavatory: Suggestive Evidence for Arousal.“ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (May): 541– 46.Google Scholar
Mutz Diana C., and Paul Martin. 2001. “Facilitating Communication Across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media.” American Political Science Review 95 (March): 97– 114.Google Scholar
Mutz Diana C., and Byron Reeves. 2005. “The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust.” American Political Science Review 99 (February): 1– 15.Google Scholar
Nivola Pietro S., and David W. Brady. 2006. Red And Blue Nation?: Characteristics And Causes of America's Polarized Politics (Volume 1). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Page Benjamin I. 1996. Who Deliberates?: Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Persson Per. 1998. “Towards a Psychological Theory of Close-ups: Experiencing Intimacy and Threat.” KINEMA. A Journal for Film and Audiovisual Media (1998, Spring): 24– 42.Google Scholar
Prior Markus. Forthcoming, 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reeves Byron, and Clifford Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffenbauer Allen, and Steven R. Schiavo. 1976. “Physical Distance and Attraction: An Intensification Effect.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12 (May): 274– 82.Google Scholar
Schudson Michael. 1995. The Power of News. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sennett Richard. 1977. The Fall of Public Man. New York: Knopf.
Smith Robert J., and Eric S. Knowles. 1979. “Affective and Cognitive Mediators of Reactions to Spatial Invasions.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15 (September): 437– 52.Google Scholar
Storms Michael D., and George C. Thomas. 1977. “Reactions to Physical Closeness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (June): 412– 28.Google Scholar
Sullivan Denis G., and Roger D. Masters. 1987. “Emotional and Cognitive Reactions to Watching Political Leaders: Experimental Evidence in France and the United States.” Paper presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Wilson James Q. 2006. “How Divided Are We?” Commentary (February 2006): 15– 21.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.