A Self-Categorization Explanation for the Hostile Media Effect

Journal of Communication

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 381-399

  Reid, Scott A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MEDIA ROLE; PARTY POLITICS;

EID: 84861947467     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01647.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ariyanto, A., Hornsey, M. J., & Gallois, C. (2007). Group allegiances and perceptions of media bias: Taking into account both the perceiver and the source. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 266-279. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00186.x.
2. Arpan, L. A., & Raney, A. A. (2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 265-281.
3. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.
4. Choi, J., Yang, M., & Chang, J. J. C. (2009). Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon: The roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate. Communication Research, 36, 54-75.
5. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85, 808-822. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808.
6. Detenber, B. H., Chew, P. Y., Quek, P., Tan, D., & Tay, P. L. (2008, May). The nature of reach and perceptions of media bias in an online context. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Conference at the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
7. Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Perceptions of a media campaign: The role of social identity and the changing intergroup context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 3-16. DOI: 10.1177/0146167298241001.
8. Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180. DOI: 10.1006/jesp.1994.1008.
9. Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449-466. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00295.x.
10. Gunther, A. C., Miller, N., & Liebhart, J. L. (2009). Assimilation and contrast in a test of the hostile media effect. Communication Research, 36, 747-764. DOI: 10.1177/0093650209346804.
11. Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping the boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55-70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02613.x.
12. Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1995). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping 3: Extremism as a self-categorical basis for polarized judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 341-371. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420250307.
13. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x.
14. Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 204-222. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x.
15. Hornsey, M. J., & Imani, A. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 365-383.
16. Hovland, C. I., Harvey, O. J., & Sherif, M. (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 55, 244-252. DOI: 10.1037/h0048480.
17. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.
18. Matheson, K., & Dursun, S. (2001). Social identity precursors to the hostile media phenomenon: Partisan perceptions of the Bosnia conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 116-125. DOI: 10.1177/1368430201004002003.
19. Reid, S. A., Giles, H., & Harwood, J. (2005). A self-categorization perspective on communication and intergroup relations. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 265-290). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
20. Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31, 129-161. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00867.x.
21. Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31, 623-641. DOI: 10.1177/0093650204269390.
22. Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
23. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
24. 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 & Social Psychology, 49, 577-587. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577.