Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 2010-12
What Do Others’ Reactions to News on Internet Portal Sites Tell Us? Effects of Presentation Format and Readers’ Need for Cognition on Reality Perception
The present experiment investigated if and how other readers’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites affect individuals’ perceptions of public opinion, assessments of media influence, and their personal opinion. In so doing, others’ responses were shown as either individual comments or aggregate approval ratings of the article, and the individual’s need for cognition (NFC) was considered as a potential moderator of their relative effects. High NFC individuals relied more on the approval ratings than individual postings in estimating media influence on general public, but low NFC individuals’ presumption about media influence remained unaltered, regardless of how others’ reactions were presented. However, exposure to dissenting comments led both high and low NFC individuals to perceive the public opinion as more discrepant from the news position, with no corresponding effect for approval ratings. Others’ comments significantly affected participants’ personal opinion, but only for those less prone to engage in analytical thinking.
Baesler, E.J., & Burgoon, J.K. ( 1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582-602.
2.
Blumler J.G., & Katz, E. ( 1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Braverman, J. ( 2008). Testimonial versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Communication Research, 35, 666-694.
4.
Brosius, H.-B., & Bathelt, A. ( 1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications . Communication Research, 21, 48-78.
5.
Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. ( 1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
6.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., & Kao, C.F. ( 1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
7.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., & Rodriguez, R. ( 1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.
8.
Chaffee, S.H. ( 1982). Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive, convergent, or complimentary? In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: interpersonal communication in a media world (2nd ed., pp. 57-77). New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Chaiken, S. ( 1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
10.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. ( 1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context . In S. Chaiken & Y. Rope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
11.
Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y., & Sheafer, T. ( 2008). The influence of presumed media influence in politics: Do politicians’ perceptions of media power matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 331-344.
12.
Fein, S., Goethals, G.R., & Kugler, M.B. ( 2007). Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debate. Political Psychology, 28, 165-192.
13.
Gunther, A.C. ( 1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25, 486-504.
14.
Gunther, A.C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D.L.G., Liebhart, J.L., & Dillard, J.P. ( 2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52-68.
15.
Gunther, A.C., & Christen, C.T. (1999). Effects of news slant and base rate information on perceived public opinion. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 277-292.
16.
Gunther, A.C., & Storey, J.D. ( 2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199-215.
17.
Hardy, B.W., & Scheufele, D.A. (2005). Examining differential gains form Internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication, 55, 71-85.
18.
Hoeken, H. ( 2001). Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation, 15, 425-437.
19.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal influence, New York: Free Press.
20.
Kim, E.-M., & Sun, Y.-H. (2006). The effect of "replies" in Internet news on the audience. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 50(4), 33-64.
21.
Kim, Y.S., & Hong, S.M. ( 2009, January 15). 0.1% of portal news users accounts for 30% of user comments … 65% of negative comments are insults and threats . Dong-A Daily, p. A1.
22.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Sharma, N., Hansen, D.L., & Alter, S. ( 2005). Impact of popularity indications on readers’ selective exposure to online news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 296-313.
23.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. ( 1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
24.
Lee, E.-J. ( 2010, June). Effects of readers’ comments on Internet news sites on construction of social reality: The moderating role of need for orientation. Paper presented at the International Communication Association annual conference, Singapore .
25.
Lee, J.-S., & Sung, M. ( 2007). The effects of reading replies on the perception of online news articles: Focusing on the PR perspective. Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, 9(4), 7-45.
26.
Mutz, D.C., & Soss, J. ( 1997). Reading public opinion: The influence of news coverage on perceptions of public sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly , 6, 431-451.
27.
Na, E.K., & Rhee, J.W. ( 2008). A study on readers’ comments: Changes in the online news usage pattern and the implications for discursive public. Seoul, Korea: Korea Press Foundation.
28.
Oh, S.J. ( 2008). 2008 Media audience survey: The 14th report on media influence and credibility. Seoul, Korea: Korea Press Foundation.
29.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Goldman, R. ( 1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
30.
Rubin, A.M. ( 1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting , 27, 37-52.
31.
Shrum, L.J. ( 2002). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 69-95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Slater, M.D., & Rouner, D. ( 1996). Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes . Communication Research, 23, 210-235.
33.
Sundar, S.S. ( 2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human website interaction . In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 89-104). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Yang, H.S. ( 2008). The effects of the opinion and quality of user postings on Internet news readers’ attitude toward the news issue. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 52, 254-280.
36.
Zillmann, D. ( 2002). Exemplification theory of media influence. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 19-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H. ( 2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case report on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Zillmann, D., Perkins, J.W., & Sundar, S.S. ( 1992). Impression-formation effects of printed news varying in descriptive precision and exemplification. Medienpsychologie , 4, 168-185.
