Seeing Media as Group Members: An Evaluation of Partisan Bias Perceptions

Journal of Communication

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 874-894

  Stroud, Natalie Jomini ^a   Muddiman, Ashley ^b   Lee, Jae Kook ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84913587187     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12110     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Anastasio, P. A., Rose, K. C., & Chapman, J. (1999). Can the media create public opinion? A social-identity approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 152-155. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00036.
2. Baum, M. A., & Gussin, P. (2008). In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3, 1-31. doi:10.1561/100.00007010.
3. Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2004). Testing the cognitive mediation model: The roles of news reliance and three gratifications sought. Communication Research, 31, 446-471. doi:10.1177/0093650204266098.
4. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057.
5. Boldry, J. G., Gaertner, L., & Quinn, J. (2007). Measuring the measures: A meta-analytic investigation of the measures of outgroup homogeneity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 157-178. doi:10.1177/1368430207075153.
6. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychology, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.
7. Carnahan, D., Lynch, E., & Garrett, R. K. (2011). Who are the "opinion-challengers"? Understanding online exposure practices and the role of information utility in the 2008 U.S. Election. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Conference, Chicago, IL.
8. Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58, 201-219. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x.
9. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Dilliplane, S. (2011). All the news you want to hear: The impact of partisan news exposure on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 287-316.
11. Dilliplane, S., Goldman, S. K., & Mutz, D. C. (2013). Televised exposure to politics: New measures for a fragmented media environment. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 236-248. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00600.x.
12. Eveland, W. P., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101-117. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00318.
13. Feldman, L. (2011). Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the hostile media effect. Political Behavior, 33, 407-432. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9139-4.
14. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676-699. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x.
15. 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. doi:10.1086/322846.
16. Hamilton, D. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broadening the domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1077-1101. doi:10.1002/ejsp.436.
17. Hartmann, T., & Tanis, M. (2013). Examining the hostile media effect as an intergroup phenomenon: The role of ingroup identification and status. Journal of Communication, 63, 535-555. doi:10.1111/jcom.12031.
18. Hoffner, C., & Rehkoff, R. A. (2011). Young voters' responses to the 2004 U.S. presidential election: Social identity, perceived media influence, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 732-757. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01565.x.
19. Holbert, R. L., Hmielowski, J. D., & Weeks, B. E. (2012). Clarifying relations between ideology and ideologically-oriented cable TV news consumption: A case of suppression. Communication Research, 39, 194-216. doi:10.1177/0093650211405650.
20. Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141-1151. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141.
21. Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700-710. doi:10.1177/0146167293196005.
22. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x.
23. Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2009). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24. Jones, E. E., Wood, G. C., & Quattrone, G. A. (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in in-groups and out-groups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 523-528. doi:10.1177/014616728173024.
25. Judd, C. M., Ryan, C. S., & Park, B. (1991). Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 366-379. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.366.
26. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Hastall, M. R. (2006). Social comparisons with news personae: Selective exposure to news portrayals of same-sex and same-age characters. Communication Research, 33, 262-284. doi:10.1177/0093650206289152.
27. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Kleinman, S. (2012). Preelection selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39, 170-193. doi:10.1177/0093650211400597.
28. Ladd, J. M. (2012). Why Americans hate the media and how it matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29. Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of ingroup and outgroup members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165-188. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.165.
30. Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Yoon, C. (1996). Perceived covariation among the features of ingroup and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 421-436. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.421.
31. Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.689.
32. Morris, J. S. (2005). The Fox News factor. International Journal of Press/Politics, 10, 56-79. doi:10.1177/1081180X05279264.
33. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051452.
35. Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36. Neumann, R., & Kenski, K. (2011). Revisiting the rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis: An assessment of ideological polarization and news media use in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. National Communication Association Conference.
37. Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., Morrison, B., & Grace, D. (1995). Becoming an in-group: Reexamining the impact of familiarity on perceptions of group homogeneity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 52-60. doi:10.2307/2787143.
38. Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173-191. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.173.
39. Park, B., & Rothbert, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051-1068. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1051.
40. Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 553-567. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.553.
41. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
42. Pew Research Center. (2008). Most voters say news media wants Obama to win. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1003/joe-the-plumber.
43. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 3-16. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.3.
44. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asympotic and resampling procedures for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
45. Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133-164. doi:10.1086/269363.
46. Prior, M. (2004). Visual political knowledge. Paper presented at the New York Area Political Psychology Meeting, New York.
47. Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141-152. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.141.
48. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49. Reid, S. A. (2012). A self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 62, 381-399. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01647.x.
50. Ryan, C. S., Hunt, J. S., Weible, J. A., Peterson, C. R., & Casas, J. F. (2007). Multicultural ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among black and white Americans. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 617-637. doi:10.1177/1368430207084105.
51. Smith, G. R. (2010). Politicians and the news media: How elite attacks influence perceptions of media bias. International Journal of Press/Politics, 15, 319-343. doi:10.1177/1940161210367430.
52. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341-366. doi:10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9.
53. Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54. 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.
55. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6-34). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
56. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577.
57. Watts, M. D., Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Fan, D. P. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research, 26, 144-175. doi:10.1177/009365099026002003.
58. Webster, G. D. (2007). The Electoral College exacerbates the red-blue divide and disenfranchises ethnic minorities. American Psychologist, 62, 701-703. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.7.701b.
59. Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H., Levendusky, M. S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and Internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 709-747. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr020.