Measure for measure: An experimental test of online political media exposure

Political Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 59-75

  Guess, Andrew M ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942121915     PISSN: 10471987     EISSN: 14764989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpu010     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Althaus, S. L., and D. H. Tewksbury. 2007. Toward a new generation of media use measures for the ANES. Report to the Board of Overseers of the ANES.
2. Bartels, L. M. 1993. Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review 87(2):267-85.
3. Belli, R. F., M. W. Traugott, and M. N. Beckmann. 2001. What leads to voting overreports? Contrasts of overreporters to validated voters and admitted nonvoters in the American National Election Studies. Journal of Official Statistics 17(4):479-98.
4. Berinsky, A., G. Huber, and G. Lenz. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20(3):351-68.
5. Berinsky, A. J., M. F. Margolis, and M. W. Sances. 2013. Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science.
6. Burton, S., and E. Blair. 1991. Task conditions, response formulation processes, and response accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 55(1):50-79.
7. Dilliplane, S., S. K. Goldman, and D. C. Mutz. 2013. Televised exposure to politics: New measures for a fragmented media environment. American Journal of Political Science 57(1):236-48.
8. Gentzkow, M., and J. M. Shapiro. 2011. Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics 126):1799-839.
9. Gerber, A. S., J. G. Gimpel, D. P. Green, and D. R. Shaw. 2011. How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review 105(1):135-50.
10. Graber, D. A. 1997. Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
11. Hindman, M. 2008. The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12. Humphreys, M., R. Sanchez de la Sierra, and P. van der Windt. 2013. Fishing, commitment, and communication: A proposal for comprehensive nonbinding research registration. Political Analysis 21(1):1-20.
13. Iyengar, S. 2011. Experimental designs for political communication research: Using new technology and online participant pools to overcome the problem of generalizability. In Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques, eds. E. P. Bucy and R. L. Holbert. New York: Routledge.
14. Iyengar, S., and D. R. Kinder. 1987. News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Krosnick, J. A. 1991. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5(3):213-36.
16. LaCour, M. J. 2013. A balanced news diet, not selective exposure: Results from Erie to Arbitron. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Annual, Chicago.
17. Lazarsfeld, P. F., B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet. 1944. The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
18. Leeper, T. 2013. Crowdsourcing with R and the MTurk API. Political Methodologist 20(2):2-7.
19. Mullainathan, S., and A. Shleifer. 2005. The market for news. American Economic Review 95(4):1031-53.
20. Munson, S., S. Y. Lee, and P. Resnick. 2013. Encouraging reading of diverse political viewpoints with a browser widget. International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
21. Mutz, D., and L. Young. 2011. Communication and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(5):1018-44.
22. Pew Research Center for the People&the Press. 2012. In Changing News Landscape, Even Television is Vulnerable. http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-television-is-vulnerable/(accessed November 24, 2013).
23. Price, V., and J. Zaller. 1993. Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly 57(2):133-64.
24. Prior, M. 2009a. The immensely inflated news audience: Assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly 73(1):130-43.
25. Prior, M. 2009b. Improving media effects research through better measurement of news exposure. Journal of Politics 71(3):893-908.
26. Prior, M., and A. Lupia. 2008. Money, time, and political knowledge: Distinguishing quick recall and political learning skills. American Journal of Political Science 52(1):169-83.
27. Romantan, A., R. Hornik, V. Price, J. Cappella, and K. Viswanath. 2008. A comparative analysis of the performance of alternative measures of exposure. Communication Methods and Measures 2(1-2):80-99.
28. Smyth, J., D. Dillman, L. Christian, and M. Stern. 2006. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in Web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(1):66-77.
29. Sudman, S., and N. M. Bradburn. 1982. Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30. Sudman, S., N. M. Bradburn, and N. Schwarz. 1996. Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31. Tourangeau, R., L. J. Rips, and K. Rasinski. 2000. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.