Correlates of party, ideology and issue based extremity in an era of egocentric publics

International Journal of Press/Politics

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 488-507

  Wojcieszak, Magdalena ^a   Rojas, Hernando ^b  

^a IE UNIVERSITY   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

extremity; ideology; Internet; media effects; party identity; radio; television

Indexed keywords

EID: 80655148810     PISSN: 19401612     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1940161211418226     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Abelson R.Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Petty R.Krosnick J., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1995:25-41.
2. Abramowitz A.,Saunders K.Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Reality of Polarized America.Forum. 2005;3:1-22.
3. Anderson B.Imagined Communities. London: Verso; 1991:.
4. Baldassare M.,Katz C.Measures of Attitude Strength as Predictors of Willingness to Speak to the Media.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 1996;73 (1): 147-58.
5. BaldassarriD.GelmanA.2007. Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/BGpolarization4.pdf.
6. Binder A. R.,Dalrymple K. E.,Brossard D.,Scheufele D. A.The Soul of a Polarized Democracy: Testing Theoretical Linkages between Talk and Attitude Extremity during the 2004 Presidential Election.Communication Research. 2009;36 (3): 315-40.
7. Carsey T.,Layman G.Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.American Journal of Political Science. 2006;50:464-77.
8. Chambers S.,Kopstein J.Bad Civil Society. Political Theory. 2001;29:837-75.
9. Cleveland W.Graphical Methods for Data Presentation: Full Scale Breaks, Dot Charts, and Multibased Logging.American Statistician. 1984;38:270-80.
10. Converse P.Ideology and Discontent. Apter D., ed. New York: Free Press; 1964:206-61.
11. DANE. 2008. Home page. http://www.dane.gov.co.
12. Evans J. Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized? An Update.Social Science Quarterly. 2003;84:71-90.
13. Fiorina M.,Abrams S.,Pope J.Culture Wars? The Myth of Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman; 2005:.
14. Fischer C. S.To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1982:.
15. Fishkin J. S.The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1995:.
16. Friedland L.,Hove T.,Rojas H.The Networked Public Sphere.Javnost-The Public. 2006;13:5-26.
17. Gastil J.,Black L.,Deess E. P.,Leighter J.From Group Member to Democratic Citizen: How Deliberating with Fellow Jurors Reshapes Civic Attitudes.Human Communication Research. 2008;34:137-69.
18. GerberA.HuberG.DohertyD.DowlingC.2010. "Personality and the Strength and Direction of Partisan Identification." Working paper. Available at http://huber.research.yale.edu/.
19. Gerber A.,Huber G.,Washington E.Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment.American Political Science Review. 2010;104:720-44.
20. Goodin R. E.,Dryzek J. S.Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.Politics & Society. 2006;34:219-44.
21. Hindman M.The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009:.
22. Huber J.Values and partisanship in left-right orientations: measuring ideology.European Journal of Political Research. 1989;17:599-621.
23. Igartua J.,Cheng L.Moderating Effect of Group Cue While Processing News on Immigration.Journal of Communication. 2009;59:726-49.
24. Iyengar S.,Hahn K.Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.Journal of Communication. 2009;39:19-39.
25. Iyengar S.,Hahn K. S.,Krosnick J. A.,Walker J.Selective Exposure to Campaign Communication: The Role of Anticipated Agreement and Issue Public Membership.Journal of Politics. 2008;70 (1): 186-200.
26. Johnson T. J.,Kaye B. E.Engaging the Public: How Government and the Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy. Johnson Thomas J.Hays Carol E.Hays Scott P., ed. New York: Rowman and Littlefield; 1998:123-137.
27. Jost J.The End of the End of Ideology.American Psychologist. 2006;61:651-70.
28. Katz E.,Blumler J. G.,Gurevitch M.Uses and Gratification Research.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1973;37:509-23.
29. Katz E.,Lazarsfeld P.Personal Influence. New York: Free Press; 1955:.
30. Layman G.,Carsey T.,Green J.,Herrera R.,Cooperman R.Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.American Political Science Review. 2010;104:324-46.
31. Lazarsfeld P. M.,Berelson B. R.,Gaudet H.The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press; 1948:.
32. Levendusky M.The Microfoundations of Mass Polarization.Political Analysis. 2009;17:162-76.
33. Neuman W. R.,Just M. R.,Criegler A. N.Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992:.
34. Newton K.Mass Media Effects: Mobilization or Media Malaise?.British Journal of Political Science. 1999;29:577-99.
35. Page B. I.Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996:.
36. Pingree R.How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation.Communication Theory. 2007;17:439-61.
37. Prior M.Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007:.
38. Puig-i-Abril E.,Rojas H.Internet Use as an Antecedent of Expressive Political Participation among Early Internet Adopters in Colombia.International Journal of Internet Science. 2007;2:28-44.
39. Rodriguez C.,Seligson M. A.Cultura política de la democracia en Colombia, 2008: El impacto de la gobernabilidad. Bogotá, Colombia: LAPOP; 2008:.
40. Rojas H.Strategy versus Understanding: How Orientations towards Political Conversation Influence Political Engagement.Communication Research. 2008;35:452-80.
41. Rojas H.,Puig-i-Abril E.Mobilizers Mobilized: Information, Expression, Mobilization and Participation in the Digital Age.Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 2009;14:902-27.
42. Rokeach M.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1968:.
43. Roscoe D. D.,Christiansen N. D.Exploring the Attitudinal Structure of Partisanship.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2010;40 (9): 2232-66.
44. The process and effects of mass communication. Schramm W.Roberts D. F., ed. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press; 1971:.
45. Shanahan J.Television and Authoritarianism: Exploring the Concept of Mainstreaming.Political Communication. 1998;15:483-96.
46. Shrum L. J.The Relationship of Television Viewing with Attitude Strength and Extremity: Implications for the Cultivation Effect.Media Psychology. 1999;1:3-25.
47. Sotirovic M.Effects of Media Use on Complexity and Extremity of Attitudes toward the Death Penalty and Prisoners' Rehabilitation.Media Psychology. 2001;3 (1): 1-24.
48. Stroud N. J.Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure.Political Behavior. 2008;30 (3): 341-66.
49. Sunstein C.Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2001:.
50. Taber C.,Lodge M.Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs.American Journal of Political Science. 2006;50:755-69.
51. Tarde G.On Communication and Social Influence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1969:.
52. Tedin L.Research in Micropolitics. Long S., ed. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1987:.
53. Tesser A.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Berkowitz L., ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1978:289-338.
54. Tetlock P. E.Mass media and political thought. Kraus S.Perloff R. M., ed. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE; 1985:267-89.
55. Visser P.,Krosnick J.,Norris C.Challenging the Common-Factor Model of Strength-Related Attitude Attributes: Contrasting the Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude Importance and Attitude-Relevant Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago; 2004:.
56. Visser P.,Bizer G.,Krosnick J.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Zanna M., ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2006:1-67.
57. WaisbordS.2008. "Press and the Public Sphere in Contemporary Latin America." Harvard-World Bank workshop, Washington DC, May. Available at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Conference/Conference%20papers/Waisbord%20Latin%20America.pdf.
58. Wellman B.Power, Community and the City. Smith M. P., ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; 1988:81-107.
59. Wojcieszak M.'Don't Talk to Me': Effects of Ideologically Homogeneous Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties on Extremism.New Media and Society. 2010;12:637-55.
60. Wojcieszak M.Carrying Online Participation Offline: Mobilization by Radical Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties.Journal of Communication. 2009;59 (3): 564-86.
61. Wojcieszak M.,Baek Y. M.,Delli Carpini M.Deliberative and Participatory Democracy? Ideological Strength and the Processes Leading from Deliberation to Political Engagement.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2010;22:154-180.
62. Wojcieszak M.,Price V.Bridging the Divide or Intensifying the Conflict? How Disagreement Affects Strong Predilections about Sexual Minorities.Political Psychology. 2010;31:330-51.