A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar

Journal of Communication

Volumn 60, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 15-34

  Holbert, R Lance ^a   Garrett, R Kelly ^a   Gleason, Laurel S ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; MEDIA ROLE; MODELING; POLITICAL DISCOURSE; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 77950305780     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01470.x     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adamic L, Glance N. The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog. 2005, Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem: Aggregation, Analysis and Dynamics, Chiba, Japan.
2. Albarracín D, Mitchell A. The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: How believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2004, 30(12):1565-1584.
3. Alter J. Adios, sound bites & fat cats. 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/id/132865/output, April 28)., Available at, Retrieved on April 5, 2009.
4. Baum M A. Soft news goes to war 2003, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
5. Baumgartner J, Morris J S. The Daily Show effect. American Politics Research 2007, 34:341-367.
6. Bennett W L, Iyengar S. A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication 2008, 58:707-731.
7. Bennett W L, Manheim J B. The one-step flow of communication. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2006, 608(1):213-232.
8. Bijker W, Law J D. Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change 1992, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
9. Bimber B. Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power 2003, New York, Cambridge University Press
10. Bimber B, Davis R. Campaigning online: The Internet in U.S. elections 2003, New York, Oxford University Press
11. Bimber B, Flanagin A J, Stohl C. Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory 2005, 15(4):365-388.
12. Brundidge J, Rice R E. Do the information rich get richer and the like-minded more similar? Routledge handbook of internet politics 2009, 144-156. Chadwick A, Howard P N. In, (Eds.), (New York, Routledge
13. Cantor P A. The Simpsons: Atomistic politics and the nuclear family. Political Theory 1999, 27:734-749.
14. Chaffee S H, Metzger M J. The end of mass communication? Mass Communication & Society 2001, 4:365-379.
15. Chaffee S H, Saphir M N, Graf J, Sandvig C, Hahn K S. Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication 2001, 18:247-272.
16. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly A H. Hueristic and systematic processing withn and beyond the persuasion context. Unintended thought 1989, 212-252. Uleman J, Bargh J, In, (Eds.), (New York, Guilford
17. Converse P. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Ideology and discontent 1964, 206-261. Apler D. In, (Ed.), (London, Free Press of Glencoe
18. DellaVigna S, Kaplan E. The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting 2006, (No. 12169)., Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research.
19. Delli Carpini M X, Keeter S. What Americans know about politics and why it matters 1996, New Haven, Yale University Press
20. Dryzek J, Niemeyer S. Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science 2006, 50:634-649.
21. Edwards P N. From " impact" to social process: Computers in society and culture. Handbook of science and technology studies 1995, 257-285. Jasanoff SMarkle G EPeterson J CPinch T J. In, (Eds.), (Beverly Hills, Sage
22. Efron M. The liberal media and right-wing conspiracies: Using cocitation information to estimate political orientation in web documents. 2004, Paper presented at the Thirteenth ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Washington, DC.
23. Fiorina M P, Abrams S A, Pope J C. Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. The Journal of Politics 2008, 70(2):556-560.
24. Fischer P, Jonas E, Frey D, Schulz-Hardt S. Selective exposure to information: The impact of information limits. European Journal of Social Psychology 2005, 35(4):469-492.
25. Frey D. Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1986, 19:41-80.
26. Gamon M, Basu S, Belenko D, Fisher D, Hurst M, Konïg A C. BLEWS: Using blogs to provide context for news articles. 2008, April)., Paper presented at the 2nd AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
27. Garner R T. Virtual social movements 1999, (No. CRSO Working Paper #579, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan
28. Garrett R K. Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 2009a, 14(2):265-285.
29. Garrett R K. Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication 2009b, 59:676-699.
30. Gentzkow M, Shapiro J M. Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy 2006, 114:280-316.
31. Grossman L. Iran protests: Twitter, the medium of the movement. 2009, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905125,00.html, June 17)., Time. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from
32. Hargittai E, Gallo J, Kane M. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice 2008, 134(1-2):67-86.
33. Holbert R L. A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist 2005, 49:436-453.
34. Huckfeldt R, Mendez J M. Moths, flames, and political engagement: Managing disagreement within communication networks. The Journal of Politics 2008, 70(1):83-96.
35. Hughes T P. The evolution of large technological systems. The social construction of technological systems 1987, 51-82. Bijker WHughes T PPinch T. In, (Eds.), (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
36. Kohut A, Doherty C, Dimock M, Keeter S. Internet's broader role in campaign 2008: Social networking and online videos take off 2008, Washington, DC, Pew Research Center for The People and The Press
37. LaMarre H L, Landreville K D, Beam M A. The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. International Journal of Press/Politics 2009, 14:212-231.
38. Lavine H, Lodge M, Freitas K. Threat, authoritarianism, and selective exposure to information. Political Psychology 2005, 26(2):219-244.
39. Lee G, Cappella J N. The effects of political talk radio on political attitude formation: Exposure versus knowledge. Political Communication 2001, 18:369-394.
40. Marcus G. Democratic theories & the study of public opinion. Polity 1988, 21:25-44.
41. McGuire W J. Theoretical foundations of campaigns. Public communication campaigns 1989, 43-65). Rice R EAtkin C K. In, (Eds.), (2nd ed., Newbury Park, CA, Sage
42. McLeod J M, Reeves B. On the nature of mass media effects. Television and social behavior: Beyond violence and children 1980, 17-54. Withey S B, Abeles R P. In, (Eds.), (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
43. Miller G R. On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice 2002, 3-16. Dillard J PPfau M. In, (Eds.), (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
44. Morris J S. The Fox News factor. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 2005, 10(3):56-79.
45. Negroponte N. Being digital 1995, New York, Knopf
46. Niles R. So why aren't you Twittering yet? Online Journalism Review 2009, http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/200901/1616, Retrieved July 14, 2009, from
47. Petty R E, Cacioppo J T. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches 1996, Boulder, CO, Westview Press
48. Petty R E, Wegener D T. The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. Dual process theories in social psychology 1999, 41-72. Chaiken S, Trope Y. In, (Eds.), (New York, Guilford
49. Petty R E, Cacioppo J T, Strathman A J, Priester J R. To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives 2005, 81-116. Brock T C, Green M C, In, (Eds.), (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
50. Petty R E, Priester J R, Brinol P. Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Media effects: Advances in theory and research 2002, 155-198). Bryant J, Zillmann D, In, (Eds.), (2nd ed., Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
51. Prior M. Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections 2007, Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press
52. Sears D O, Freedman J L. Selective exposure to information: a critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly 1967, 31(2):194-213.
53. Shoemaker P J. Gatekeeping: Communication Concepts 1991, Vol. 3, Newbury Park, CA, Sage
54. Slater M D. Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory 2007, 17:281-303.
55. Smith M R, Marx L. Does technology drive history? 1994, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
56. Stroud N J. Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior 2008, 30:341-366.
57. Surowiecki J. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations 2004, New York, Doubleday
58. Tewksbury D. The seeds of audience fragmentation: Specialization in the use of online news sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 2005, 49(3):332-348.
59. Vargas J A. 2008, C01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR200808 1903186.html, August 20). Obama's Wide Web: From YouTube to text messaging, candidate's team connects to voters. Washington Post, p., Retrieved July 14, 2009, from
60. Webster J G. Beneath the veneer of fragmentation: Television audience polarization in a multichannel world. Journal of Communication 2005, 55:366-382.
61. Webster J G. Diversity of exposure. Media diversity and localism: Meaning and metrics 2007, 309-326. Napoli P M. In, (Ed.), (Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
62. Williams B A, Delli Carpini D X. Heeeeeeeeeeeere's democracy! The Chroncile of Higher Education 2002, B14-B15. April 19).
63. Wojcieszak M E, Mutz D C. Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication 2009, 59(1):40-56.
64. Young D G. Late-night comedy and the salience of the candidates' caricatured traits in the 2000 election. Mass Communication & Society 2006, 9:339-366.
65. Zaller J R. The nature and origins of mass opinion 1992, New York, Cambridge University Press
66. Zook M. The unorganized militia networks: conspiracies, computers, and community. Berkeley Planning Journal 1996, 11(1):26-48.