Recent empirical research has vividly demonstrated the hostile media effect—the tendency for individuals highly involved in a controversial issue to see media coverage of that issue as hostile to their own point of view. This type of contrast bias—along with its assimilation counterpart—is hypothesized to stem from preexisting partisan attitudes coupled with other explanatory factors, including perceived reach of the message and characteristics of the source. To test these predictions, we recruited partisan respondents who were either Native American or sympathetic to native issues. Participants (N = 152) read information, varying in apparent circulation (low, medium and high reach) and source (friendly vs. not friendly) characteristics, on the issue of genetically modified wild rice, a controversial topic for native people in the upper Midwest. Variations in reach produced a linear trend in judgments of bias in the predicted direction. However, overall evaluations tended toward assimilation rather than contrast effects, and two distinct dimensions of partisanship produced surprising and provocative results.
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.
2.
Bauer, R. ( 1973). The audience. In I. de Sola Pool, W. Schramm, F.W. Frey, N. Maccoby , & E. B. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of communication. Chicago: Rand McNally.
3.
Bohner, G., Ruder, M., & Erb, H.-P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 495-519.
4.
Chaffee, S.H., & Hochheimer, J.L. (1985). The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the "limited effects" model. In M. Gurevitch & M.R. Levy (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 75-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
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 climateCommunication Research, 36, 54-75.
6.
Christen, C.T., Kannaovakun, P., & Gunther, A.C. ( 2002). Hostile media perceptions: Partisan assessments of press and public during the 1997 UPS strike. Political Communication , 19, 423-436.
7.
Dalton, R.M., Beck, P.A., & Huckfeldt, R. ( 1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review , 92, 111-126.
8.
Geers, A.L., & Lassiter, G.D. (2005). Affective assimilation and contrast: Effects of expectations and prior stimulus exposure. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 143-154.
9.
Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. ( 1994). The causes of hostile media judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180.
10.
Greene, S. ( 2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship . Political Behavior, 24, 171-197.
11.
Gunther, A.C. ( 1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147-167.
12.
Gunther, A.C. ( 1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25, 481-499.
13.
Gunther, A.C., & Chia, S.C.-Y. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media effect and its consequences. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 689-701.
14.
Gunther, A.C., & Christen, C.T. (1999). Effects of news slant and base rate information on perceived public opinion.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 277-292.
15.
Gunther, A.C., Christen, C.T., Liebhart, J.L., & Chia, S.C.-Y. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 295-320.
16.
Gunther, A.C., & Liebhart, J.L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication , 56, 449-466.
17.
Gunther, A.C., & Schmitt, K.M. ( 2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55-70.
18.
Johnson, B.T., & Eagly, A.H. ( 1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
19.
Liebhart, J.L., & Gunther, A.C. ( 2005). Conceptualizing partisanship: Dimensions of involvement with the issue of genetically modified food. Unpublished manuscript.
20.
Lord, C.G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. ( 1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
21.
Mertens, R. ( 2004). The fight to save the tradition of wild rice. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1013/p11s02-lihc.html
22.
Perloff, R.M. ( 1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
23.
Robertson, T. ( 2005). White Earth members seek ban on genetically modified wild rice. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/03/08_robertsont_wildrice/
24.
Salmon, C.T. ( 1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and communication research. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 243-268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25.
Schmitt, K., Gunther, A.C., & Liebhart, J. ( 2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31, 623-641.
26.
Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. ( 2005). The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy: The case of Gaza settlers.Communication Research , 32, 794-821.
27.
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.
28.
Wild rice: Protecting our sacred manoom. (n.d.) Retrieved on May 10, 2008, from http://native-harvest.com/node/6
