The divisive coverage effect: How media may cleave differences of opinion between social groups

Communication Research

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 171-192

  Anastasio, Phyllis A ^a   Rose, Karen C ^b   Chapman, Judith G ^a  

^a SAINT JOSEPH S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WIDENER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

In group; Media; Persuasion; Social identity

Indexed keywords

EID: 16244412321     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650204273762     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anastasio, P. A., Rose, K. C., & Chapman, J. (1999). Can the media create public opinion? A social identity approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 152-155.
2. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
3. Brewer, M. B., Manzi, J. M., & Shaw, J. S. (1993). In-group identification as a function of depersonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science, 4, 88-92.
4. Brown, W. J., Duane, J. J., & Fraser, B. P. (1997). Media coverage and public opinion of the O.J. Simpson trial: Implications for the criminal justice system. Communication Law & Policy, 2, 261-287.
5. Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 171-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murell, A. J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692-704.
7. Gallup Organization. (2004). Americans still believe O.J. Simpson is guilty: Controversial double-murder case still seen as blow to race relations. Retrieved January 10, 2004, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx? ci=12046
8. Gilens, M. (1996). Race and poverty in American: Public misperceptions and the American news media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 515-541.
9. Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. New York: Basic Books.
10. Gunther, A. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference. Communication Research, 25, 486-504.
11. Hertog, J. K., & Fan, D. P. (1995). The impact of press coverage on social beliefs: The case of HIV transmission. Communication Research, 22, 545-574.
12. Mackie, D. M., Gastardo-Conaco, M. C., & Skelly, J. J. (1992). Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of in-group and out-group persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 145-151.
13. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812-822.
14. McGarty, C., Haslam, S., Hutchinson, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1994). The effects of salient group memberships on persuasion. Small Group Research, 25, 267-293.
15. Miller, W. (2000, June 18). Non-sequitur. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. K6.
16. Myers, D. G., & Arenson, S. J. (1972). Enhancement of dominant risk tendencies in group discussion. Psychological Reports, 30, 615-623.
17. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communications and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
18. Platow, M. J., Mills, D., & Morrison, M. (2000). The effects of social context, source fairness, and perceived self-source similarity on social influence: A self-categorization analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 69-81.
19. Surette, R. (1994, July). Media, violence, youth, and society. The World & I,09, 370-383.
20. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
21. Terkildsen, N., & Schnell, F. (1997). How media frames move public opinion: An analysis of the women's movement. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 879-900.
22. Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Group norms, prototypicality, and persuasion. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 157-170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Van Knippenberg, D., & Wilke, H. (1992). Prototypicality of arguments and conformity to in-group norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 141-155.
24. Wilder, D. A. (1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-groups and out-groups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1202-1213.