Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon: The roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate

Communication Research

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 54-75

  Choi, Jounghwa ^a   Yang, Myengja ^b   Chang, Jeongheon J C ^c  

^a Hallym University   (South Korea)

^b KT Cooperation   (South Korea)

^c MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hostile media perception; Involvement; Media skepticism; Perceived opinion climate; Presumed media influence

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149170642     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650208326462     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Arbuckle, J.L. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user's guide. Chicago: SmallWaters.
2. Arpan, L.M., & Raney, A.A. (2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80 (2). 265-281.
3. Cho, H., & Boster, F.J. (2005). Development and validation of Value-, Outcome-, and Impression-Relevant Involvement scales. Communication Research, 32 (2). 235-264.
4. Christen, C.T., & Gunther, A.C. (2003). The influence of mass media and other culprits on the projection of personal opinion. Communication Research, 30, 414-431.
5. Christen, C.T., Kannaovakun, P., & Gunther, A.C. (2002). Hostile media perceptions: Partisan assessments of press and public during the 1997 UPS strike. Political Communication, 19 (4). 423-436.
6. Dalton, R.J., Beck, P.A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 92 (1). 111-126.
7. Eveland, W.P., & Shah, D.V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101-117.
8. Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180.
9. Gunther, A.C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147-167.
10. Gunther, A.C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25 (5). 486-504.
11. Gunther, A.C., & Chia, S.C. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78 (4). 688-701.
12. Gunther, A.C., & Christen, C.T. (1999). Effects of news slant and base rate information on public opinion inferences. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 277-292.
13. Gunther, A.C., & Christen, C.T. (2002). Projection or persuasive press? Contrary effects of personal opinion and perceived news coverage on estimates of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 52 (1). 177-195.
14. Gunther, A.C., Christen, C.T., Liebhart, J.L., & Chia, S.C. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 295-320.
15. Gunther, A.C., & Liebhart, J.L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56 (3). 449-466.
16. Gunther, A.C., & Schmitt, K.M. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54 (1). 55-70.
17. Gunther, A.C., & Storey, J.D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53 (2). 199-215.
18. Hovland, C.I., Harvey, O.J., & Sherif, M. (1957). Gradual and absolute approaches to attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55 (2). 244-252.
19. Johnson, B.T., & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
20. Johnson, B.T., & Eagly, A.H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (3). 375-384.
21. Johnson, B.T., Lin, H.Y., Symons, C.S., Campbell, L.A., & Ekstein, G. (1995). Initial beliefs and attitudinal latitudes as factors in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (5). 502-511.
22. Kiesler, C., Collins, B.E., & Miller, N. (1969). Attitude change: A critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York: Wiley.
23. Liebeskind, K. (1997). Credibility problems plague all media. Editor and Publisher, 130 (50). 23.
24. Matheson, K., & Dursun, S. (2001). Social identity precursors to the hostile media phenomenon: Partisan perceptions of coverage of the Bosnian conflict. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 4 (2). 116-125.
25. McQuail, D. (2000). McQuail's mass communication theory (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Moy, P., & Pfau, M. (2001). With malice toward all. Westport, CT: Praeger.
27. Mulder, R. (1979). The effects of televised political ads in the 1975 Chicago mayoral election. Journalism Quarterly, 56 (3). 336-340.
28. Ostrom, T.M., & Brock, T.C. (1968). A cognitive model of attitudinal involvement. In R. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. McGuire, T. Newcomb, M. Rosenberg & P. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 373-383). Chicago: Rand McNally.
29. Perloff, R.M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third-person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16 (2). 236-262.
30. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
31. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (3). 367-374.
32. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (5). 847-855.
33. Roser, C. (1990). Involvement, attention, and perceptions of message relevance in the response to persuasive appeals. Communication Research, 17, 571-600.
34. Salmon, C.T. (1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and communication research. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 243-268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35. Sarup, G., Suchner, R.W., & Gaylord, G. (1991). Contrast effects and attitude change: A test of the two-stage hypothesis of social judgment theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54 (4). 364-372.
36. Schmitt, K.M., Gunther, A.C., & Liebhart, J.L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31 (6). 623-641.
37. Sherif, C.W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R.E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
38. Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C.I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40. Slater, M.D. (1997). Persuasion processes across receiver goals and message genres. Communication Theory, 7 (2). 125-148.
41. Tsfati, Y. (2003 a). Does audience skepticism of the media matter in agenda setting ? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47 (2). 157-176.
42. Tsfati, Y. (2003 b). Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International Journal of Public Opinion, 15 (1). 65-82.
43. Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J.N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30 (5). 504-529.
44. Vallone, R.P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.