As digital media technologies have evolved and become more powerful, the prevalence of mixed-media content—that is, content that mixes multiple media such as text and video—has increased considerably. Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than YouTube, now the Web's third most trafficked site. YouTube provides for video sharing in an environment otherwise dominated by textual titles, descriptions, and comments. As such, it is an ideal venue in which to examine the impact of intramedium interaction on message evaluation. This study uses a survey experiment to test first-person and third-person evaluations of campaign ads from the Obama and Romney campaigns, and the comments posted about them on YouTube, using two real ads and one set of fake comments. Findings suggest that partisan perceptions of the manipulated ads transfer to the constant comments, and that the contextual cue of the YouTube environment reciprocally impacts partisan evaluation of the ads themselves.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EvelandWP. A “mix of attributes” approach to the study of media effects and new communication technologies. Journal of Communication, 2003; 53:395–410.
2.
VeenstraAS, SayreB, ShahDV, et al.Frames and knowledge in mixed media: how activation changes information intake. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008; 11:443–450.
3.
AndersonAA, BrossardD, ScheufeleDA, et al.The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2014; 19:373–387.
4.
HolbertRL. Intramedia mediation: the cumulative and complementary effects of news media use. Political Communication, 2005; 22:447–461.
5.
FreyD. (1986) Recent research on selective exposure to information. In BerkowitzL, ed. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 19. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 41–80.
6.
KaidLL. Effects of the television spots on images of Dole and Clinton. American Behavioral Scientist, 1997; 40:1085–1094.
7.
LordCG, RossL, LepperMR. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1979; 37:2098–2109.
8.
SweeneyPD, GruberKL. Selective exposure: voter information preferences and the Watergate affair. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1984; 46:1208–1221.
9.
GarramoneGM. Effects of negative political advertising: the roles of sponsor and rebuttal. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1985; 29:147–159.
10.
ShenF, WuHD. Effects of soft-money issue advertisements on candidate evaluation and voting preference: an exploration. Mass Communication & Society, 2002; 5:395–410.
11.
WeberC, DunawayJ, JohnsonT. It's all in the name: source cue ambiguity and the persuasive appeal of campaign ads. Political Behavior, 2012; 34:561–584.
12.
StroudNJ. (2011) Niche news: the politics of news choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
SchmierbachM, Oeldorf-HirschA. A little bird told me, so I didn't believe it: Twitter, credibility, and issue perceptions. Communication Quarterly, 2012; 60:317–337.
14.
DavisonWP. The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1983; 47:1–15.
15.
JonesEE, NisbettRE. (1972) The actor and the observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In JonesEE, KanouseDE, KelleyHH, et al., eds. Attribution: perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, pp. 79–94.
16.
BanningSA, SweetserKD. How much do they think it affects them and whom do they believe? Comparing the third-person effect and credibility of blogs and traditional media. Communication Quarterly, 2007; 55:451–466.
17.
ParadiseA, SullivanM. (In)visible threats? The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2012; 15:55–60.
18.
FieldsJM, SchumanH. Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1976; 40:427–448.
19.
RossL, GreeneD, HouseP. The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977; 13:279–301.
20.
GuntherAC, ChristenCT. Projection or persuasive press? Contrary effects of personal opinion and perceived news coverage on estimates of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 2002; 52:177–195.
21.
GuntherAC, MundyP. Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 1993; 70:58–67.
22.
MeirickPC, NisbettGS. I approve this message: effects of sponsorship, ad tone, and reactance in 2008 presidential advertising. Mass Communication & Society, 2011; 14:666–689.
23.
BerinskyAJ, HuberGA, LenzGS. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 2012; 20:351–368.
24.
LauRR, SigelmanL, RovnerIB. The effects of negative political campaigns: a meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 2007; 69:1176–1209.
25.
GolanGJ, BanningSA, LundyL. Likelihood to vote, candidate choice, and the third-person effect: behavioral implications of political advertising in the 2004 presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 2008; 52:278–290.
