This study examines the effects of geographical variations in diversity on political communication within the context of partisan media and audiences. Partisan heterogeneity, as an indicator of political diversity, was conceptualized as a geographical context of the distribution of party preferences within a county. Using a set of nationwide panel survey data with county-level statistics, we conducted multilevel modeling to test its effects on partisan news use, political discussion, knowledge, and affective polarization. The results indicate that county-level partisan heterogeneity reduced the average levels of like-minded news consumption. Moreover, it attenuated the positive relationship between like-minded news use and political talk with strong ties. Additionally, we found that the context of partisan heterogeneity significantly moderated the mediation effects of partisan news use on political knowledge and affective polarization through political discussion. Implications of these results on partisan communication were discussed.
AmsalemE.NirL. (2021). Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 48(5), 619–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219866357
2.
BakshyE.MessingS.AdamicL. A. (2015). Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823
4.
BeamM. A.HutchensM. J.HmielowskiJ. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information Communication & Society, 21(7), 940–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1444783
5.
BergerC. R.CalabreseR. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
6.
BodeL.EdgerlyS.WellsC.GabayI.FranklinC.FriedlandL.ShahD. V. (2018). Participation in contentious politics: Rethinking the roles of news, social media, and conversation amid divisiveness. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1485607
7.
BorahP.BarnidgeM.RojasH. (2022). The contexts of political participation: The communication mediation model under varying structural conditions of the public sphere. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(4), 942–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211029466
8.
ChaffeeS. H.MutzD. (1988). Comparing mediated and interpersonal communication data. In HawkinsR. P.WiemannJ. M.PingreeS. (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 19–43). Sage.
9.
ChenH.-T.KimY.ChanM. (2022). Just a glance, or more? Pathways from counter-attitudinal incidental exposure to attitude (de)polarization through response behaviors and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Communication, 72(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab046
10.
ChoJ. (2011). The geography of political communication: Effects of regional variations in campaign advertising on citizen communication. Human Communication Research, 37(3), 434–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01406.x
11.
ChoJ.AhmedS.KeumH.ChoiY. J.LeeJ. H. (2018). Influencing myself: Self-reinforcement through online political expression. Communication Research, 45(1), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644020
12.
ChoJ.McLeodD. M. (2007). Structural antecedents to knowledge and participation: Extending the knowledge gap concept to participation. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00340.x
13.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M.McLeodD. M.SchollR. M.GotliebM. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x
14.
CramerK. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. The University of Chicago Press.
15.
DonohueG. A.OlienC. N.TichenorP. J. (1985). Reporting conflict by pluralism, newspaper type and ownership. Journalism Quarterly, 62(3), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908506200305
16.
DruckmanJ. N.LevenduskyM. S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization?Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003
17.
DruckmanJ. N.LevenduskyM. S.McLainA. (2018). No need to watch: How the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12325
18.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500
19.
EvelandW. PJr. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877
20.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
21.
FinifterA. W. (1974). The friendship group as a protective environment for political deviants. American Political Science Review, 68(2), 607–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959508
22.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
23.
GarrettR. K.GvirsmanS. D.JohnsonB. K.TsfatiY.NeoR.DalA. (2014). Implications of pro- and counter attitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028
24.
GarrettR. K.WeeksB. E.NeoR. L. (2016). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: How online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12164
25.
Gil de ZúñigaH.DiehlT.HuberB.LiuJ. H. (2019). The citizen communication mediation model across countries: A multilevel mediation model of news use and discussion on political participation. Journal of Communication, 69(2), 144–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz002
26.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
27.
GreeneJ. O. (1984). A cognitive approach to human communication: An action assembly theory. Communication Monographs, 51(4), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390203
HayesA. F.RockwoodN. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859633
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001
HuberG. A.MalhotraN. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1086/687533
34.
HuckfeldtR.JohnsonP. E.SpragueJ. (2002). Political environments, political dynamics, and the survival of disagreement. Journal of Politics, 64(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00115
35.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornT. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x
36.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press.
37.
HutchensM. J.HmielowskiJ. D.BeamM. A. (2019). Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization. Communication Monographs, 86(3), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1575255
38.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
KimY. (2015). Does disagreement mitigate polarization? How selective exposure and disagreement affect political polarization. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 915–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015596328
41.
KimY.-C.Ball-RokeachS. J. (2006). Community storytelling network, neighborhood context, and civic engagement: A multilevel approach. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 411–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00282.x
42.
KimY.-C.JungJ.-Y.Ball-RokeachS. J. (2006). “Geo-ethnicity” and neighborhood engagement: A communication infrastructure perspective. Political Communication, 23(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600600976997
43.
KlofstadC. A.McClurgS. D.RolfeM. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks: A comparison of two “Name Generator” procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp032
44.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.JohnsonB. K. (2014). Selective exposure for better or worse: Its mediating role for online news’ impact on political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12036
45.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030
46.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MothesC.PolavinN. (2020). Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information. Communication Research, 47(1), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217719596
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (Eds.). (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (2nd ed.). Columbia University Press.
49.
LeeJ.ChoiY. (2020). Effects of network heterogeneity on social media on opinion polarization among South Koreans: Focusing on fear and political orientation. International Communication Gazette, 82(2), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518820499
50.
LevenduskyM. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. The University of Chicago Press.
51.
LiQ.BondR. M.GarrettR. K. (2023). Misperceptions in sociopolitical context: Belief sensitivity’s relationship with battleground state status and partisan segregation. Journal of Communication, 73(5), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad017
52.
MinozziW.SongH.LazerD. M. J.NebloM. A.OgnyanovaK. (2020). The incidental pundit: Who talks politics with whom, and why?American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12469
53.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
54.
MutzD. C.MartinP. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401000223
OliverJ. E. (1999). The effects of metropolitan economic segregation on local civic participation. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991790
PetersonE.GoelS.IyengarS. (2021). Partisan selective exposure in online news consumption: Evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.55
60.
PingreeR. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x
61.
PriceV.CappellaJ. N.NirL. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246506
62.
PriceV.TewksburyD. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In BarettG. A.BosterF. J. (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 173–212). Ablex.
63.
PriorM. (2013). The challenge of measuring media exposure: Reply to Dilliplane, Goldman, and Mutz. Political Communication, 30(4), 620–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.819539
64.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (Eds.). (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
65.
ScheufeleD. A.HardyB. W.BrossardD.Waismel-ManorI. S.NisbetE. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 728–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00317.x
66.
ShahD. V.McLeodD. M.RojasH.ChoJ.WagnerM. W.FriedlandL. A. (2017). Revising the communication mediation model for a new political communication ecology. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12115
67.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
68.
SukJ.ShahD. V.WellsC.WagnerM. W.FriedlandL. A.CramerK. J.HughesC.FranklinC. (2020). Do improving conditions harden partisan preferences? Lived experiences, imagined communities, and polarized evaluations. International Journal of Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(4), 750–768. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz051
ThurreF. O.GaleJ.StaerkléC. (2020). Speaking up or silencing out in the face of rising right-wing populism: A dynamic test of the spiral of silence across 15 European countries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(3), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz034
71.
TichenorP. J.DonohueG. A.OlienC. N. (1973). Mass communication research: Evolution of a structural model. Journalism Quarterly, 50(3), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769907305000301
72.
TylerM.IyengarS. (2023). Learning to dislike your opponents: Political socialization in the era of polarization. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305542200048x
73.
WangM. Y.HmielowskiJ. D.HutchensM. J.BeamM. A. (2017). Extending the spiral of silence: Partisan media, perceived support, and sharing opinions online. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(3), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1338980
74.
WilkinH. A.Ball-RokeachS. J.MatsaganisM. D.CheongP. H. (2007). Comparing the communication ecologies of geo-ethnic communities: How people stay on top of their community. Electronic Journal of Communication, 17(1&2), 1–14. https://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/017/1/01711.HTML
75.
WojcieszakM. (2010). “Don’t talk to me”: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society, 12(4), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342775
76.
WojcieszakM.WarnerB. R. (2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406
77.
WyattR. O.KatzE.KimJ. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02834.x
78.
YangT.Majo-VazquezS.NielsenR. K.Gonzalez-BailonS. (2020). Exposure to news grows less fragmented with an increase in mobile access. PNAS, 117(46), 28678–28683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006089117
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
