Intramedia mediation: The cumulative and complementary effects of news media use

Political Communication

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 447-461

  Holbert, R Lance ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Indirect effects; Knowledge; Mediation; News media use; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144499330     PISSN: 10584609     EISSN: 10917675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10584600500311378     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
3. Boster, F. J. (2002). On making progress in communication science. Human Communication Research, 28, 473-490.
4. Brians, C. L., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1996). Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news, and newspapers. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 172-193.
5. Chaffee, S. H. (1986). Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive, convergent or complementary? In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (3rd ed., pp. 62-80). New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Chaffee, S. H., & Schleuder, J. A. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107.
7. Drew, D. & Weaver, D. (1998). Voter learning in the 1996 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 292-301.
8. Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2002). News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 26-40.
9. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when voters are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409-451.
10. Holbert, R. L., Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Wen, W.-C. (2002). The role of communication in the formation of an issue-based citizenry. Communication Monographs, 69, 296-310.
11. Holbert, R. L., Shah, D.V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Political implications of prime-time drama and sitcom use: Genres of representation and opinions concerning women's rights. Journal of Communication, 53, 45-60.
12. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551.
13. Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of analyzing indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47, 553-569.
14. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
15. Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294-316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bölger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
17. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
18. Lichtman, A. J. (1996). The keys to the White House, 1996: A surefire guide to predicting the next president. Lanham, MD: Madison.
19. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C., & Huffman, J. (1998, June). A new method to test for mediation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Park City, UT.
20. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Huffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
21. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
22. Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.
23. Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new-voter learning via three channels of political information. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 18-32.
24. McGuire, W. J. (1986). The myth of massive media impact: Savagings and salvagings. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior (pp. 173-257). New York: Academic Press.
25. McGuire, W. J. (1999). Constructing social psychology: Creative and critical processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 215-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. McLeod, J. M., Kosicki, G. M., & Pan, Z. (1996). On understanding and misunderstanding media effects. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp. 235-266). London: Edward Arnold.
28. McLeod, J. M., & Reeves, B. (1980). On the nature of mass media effects. In S. B. Withey & R. P. Abeles (Eds.), Television and social behavior: Beyond violence and children (pp. 17-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
30. McLeod, J., Scheufele, D.A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E., Holbert, R. L., Zhang, W., Zubric, J., & Zubric, S. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research, 26, 743-774.
31. McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. London: Sage.
32. Meeker, W. Q., Cornwell, L. W., & Aroian, L. A. (1981). Selected tables in mathematical statistics, Vol. VII: The product of two normally distributed random variables. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
33. Moy, P., & Pfau, M. (2000). With malice toward all?: The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. Westport, CT: Praeger.
34. Moy, P., Pfau, M., & Kahlor, L. (1999). Media use and public confidence in democratic institutions. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic. Media, 43, 137-158.
35. Patterson, T. E., & McClure, R. (1976). The unseeing eye: The myth of television power in national elections. New York: Putnam & Sons.
36. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A method for comparing completely standardized solutions in multiple groups. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 292-308.
37. Romer, D., Kenski, K., Waldman, P., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). Capturing campaign dynamics: The national Annenberg election survey. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Rosenberg, M. (1968). The logic of survey analysis. New York: Basic Books.
39. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 727-743.
40. Scheufele, D. A., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Personality strength and social capital: The role of dispositional and informational variables in the production of civic participation. Communication Research, 27, 107-131.
41. Shah, D.V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R.L. (2001). "Connecting" and "disconnecting" with civic life: The effects of Internet use on the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-162.
42. Stephenson, M. T., & Holbert, R. L. (2003). A Monte Carlo simulation of observable- versus latent-variable structural equation modeling techniques. Communication Research, 30, 332-354.
43. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (1995). Voter learning in the 1992 presidential election: Did the "nontraditional" media and debates matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 7-17.
44. Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787-798.
45. Woodworth, R. S. (1928). Dynamic psychology. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925 (pp. 111-126). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
46. Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17-78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.