Smartphones have now become routinely used tools for people’s everyday life news consumption. This article presents a diary study involving 49 university students in the United States documenting their process of consuming political news via smartphones. Participants reported the information about the news and used 23 pairs of semantic differential scales to evaluate and express their affective reactions to the news. Among 176 political news items submitted, the highest proportion was election news. Significant demographic differences were found in participants’ choices of semantic adjectives. Differences were also found in proportions of election and non-election news submitted. A higher proportion of election news was marked as ‘light’, ‘stale’, ‘shallow’, ‘worthless’, ‘dishonest’ and ‘harmful’ than those labelled for non-election news. Findings provide valuable insights into university students’ political news mobile consumption activities and their assessment and sentiment surrounding election news and general political news during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign.
BarthelMMitchellA. Americans’ attitudes about the news media deeply divided along partisan lines. Report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, May2017.
2.
Pew Research Center. State of the news media 2015. Pew Research Center, Report, Washington, DC, April2015.
3.
Pew Research Center. State of the news media 2016. Report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, June2016.
4.
PurcellKRainieLMitchellA, et al. Understanding the participatory news consumer: how Internet and cell phone users have turned news into a social experience. Report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, March2010.
5.
O’BrienHFreundLWestmanS. What motivates the online news browser? News item selection in a social information seeking scenario. Inform Res2014; 19(3): 95–112.
6.
StruckmannSKarnowskiV. News consumption in a changing media ecology: an MESM study on mobile news. Telemat Inform2016; 33(2): 309–319.
7.
AllcottHGetzkowM. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J Econ Perspect2017; 31(2): 211–236.
8.
HoffmanLHFangH. Quantifying political behavior on mobile devices over time: a user evaluation study. J Inform Technol Polit2014; 11(4): 435–445.
9.
KushinMJYamamotoM. Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Commun Soc2010; 13(5): 608–630.
10.
WilsonP. Second-hand knowledge: an inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983.
11.
RiehSY. Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the web. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2002; 53: 145–161.
12.
TangRNgKBStrzalkowskiT, et al. Toward machine understanding of information quality. In: Proceedings of the American society for information science and technology, Long Beach, CA, 19–22 October 2003, pp. 213–220. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
13.
MetzgerMJ. Making sense of credibility on the web: models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2007; 58: 2078–2091.
14.
HarriganJB. Digital readiness gaps. Report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, September2016.
15.
BawdenDRobinsonL. The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. J Inform Sci2009; 35: 180–191.
16.
WineburgSMcGrewSBreakstoneJ, et al. Evaluating information: the cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository, November2016, https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
17.
ChurchKCherubiniMOliverN. A large-scale study of daily information needs captured in situ. Trans Comput Hum Inter2014; 21: 1–46.
18.
HeimonenT. Information needs and practices of active mobile Internet users. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on mobile technology, application and systems, Nice, 2–4 September 2009, pp. 1–8. New York: ACM Press.
19.
ShimHYouKHLeeJK, et al. Why do people access news with mobile devices? Exploring the role of suitability perception and motives on mobile news use. Telemat Inform2015; 32(1): 108–117.
20.
DearmanDKellarMTruongK. An examination of daily information needs and sharing opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW), New York, 8–12 November 2008, pp. 679–688. New York: ACM Press.
21.
MartinJA. Mobile media and political participation: defining and developing an emerging field. Mobile Media Commun2014; 2(2): 173–195.
22.
ZhangLZhengLPengT. Structurally embedded news consumption on mobile news applications. Inform Process Manage2017; 53(5): 1242–1253.
23.
ScottDKGobetsRH. Hard news/soft news content of the national broadcast networks, 1972–1987. J Quarterly1992; 69(2): 406–412.
24.
CunninghamSNicholsDHinzeA, et al. What’s news? Encounters with news in everyday life: a study of behaviours and attitudes. Int J Digit Lib2016; 17(3): 257–271.
25.
MartinJ. Mobile news use and participation in elections: a bridge for the democratic divide?Mobile Media Commun2015; 3(2): 230–249.
26.
SmithADugganM. The state of the 2012 election – mobile politics. Report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, October2012.
27.
StephensMYooJMouraoRR, et al. How app are people to use smartphones, search engines, and social media for news? Examining information acquisition tools and their influence on political knowledge and voting. J Inform Technol Polit2014; 11(4): 383–396.
28.
ParkCS. Applying ‘negativity bias’ to Twitter: negative news on Twitter, emotions, and political learning. J Inform Technol Polit2015; 12(4): 342–359.
29.
KuhlthauC. Inside the search process: information seeking from the user’s perspective. J Am Soc Inform Sci1991; 42(5): 361–371.
30.
DevinBReinhardC. How emotional dimensions of situated information seeking related to user evaluations of help from sources: an exemplar study informed by sense-making methodology. In: NahlDBilalD (eds) Information and emotion: the emergent affective paradigm in information behaviour research and theory. Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc, 2007, pp. 51–84.
31.
NahlD. Affective load. In: FisherKErdelezSMcKechnieL (eds) Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc, 2005, pp. 39–43.
32.
NahlD. Measuring the affective information environment of web searchers. In: Proceedings of the 67th annual meeting of the American society for information science and technology, Providence, RI, 13–18 November 2004, pp. 191–197. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
33.
NahlD. Affective and cognitive information behavior: interaction effects in Internet use. In: GoveA (ed.) Proceedings of the 68th annual meeting of the American society for information science and technology, vol. 42. Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc, 2005, pp. 104–116.
34.
StrongDLeeYWangR. 10 potholes in the road to information quality. IEEE Comput1997; 30(8): 38–46.
OsgoodCESuciGJTannenbaumPH. The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1957.
37.
SharpeLKAndersonWTJr.Concept-scale interaction in the semantic differential. J Market Res1972; 9(4): 432–434.
38.
AjzenITimkoC. Correspondence between health attitudes and behavior. Basic Appl Soc Psychol1986; 7(4): 259–276.
39.
FishbeinMRavenBH. The AB scales: an operational definition of belief and attitude. Hum Relat1962; 15(1): 35–44.
40.
KatzerJ. The development of a semantic differential to assess users’ attitudes towards an on-line interactive reference retrieval system. J Am Soc Inform Sci1972; 23(2): 122–128.
41.
ScottWEJr.The development of semantic differential scales as measures of ‘morale’. Person Psychol1967; 20(2): 179–198.
42.
KhanK. User experience in mobile phones by using semantic differential methodology. In: Proceedings of the European conference on information systems management and evaluation, Cork, 13–14 September 2012, pp. 143–150. New York: Curran Associates.
43.
TaylorHF. Semantic differential factor scores as measures of attitude and perceived attitude. J Soc Psychol1971; 83(2): 229–234.
44.
TakahashiHTeradaKMoritaT, et al. Different impressions of other agents obtained through social interaction uniquely modulate dorsal and ventral pathway activities in the social human brain. Cortex2014; 58: 289–300.
45.
TakahashiHBanMAsadaM. Semantic differential scale method can reveal multi-dimensional aspects of mind perception. Front Psychol2016; 7(1717): 1717.
46.
OhKTangR. How do university students receive, read, find, share, and store news? A survey research study on mobile news behavior. J Lib Inform Stud2018; 16(1): 1–21.
47.
LeeAMChyiHI. Motivational consumption model: exploring the psychological structure of news use. J Mass Commun Quart2014; 91(4): 706–724.
48.
BolgerNDavisARafaeliE. Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Ann Rev Psychol2003; 54: 579–616.
49.
DuJ. The information journey of marketing professionals: incorporating work task-driven information seeking, information judgments, information use, and information sharing. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol2014; 65(9): 1850–1869.
50.
ReisHGableS. Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In: ReisTJuddM (eds) Handbook for research methods in social and personality, psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 190–222.
51.
KrathwohlD. Methods of educational and social science research: an integrated approach. 2nd ed.New York: Longman, 2004.
52.
PickardA. Research methods in information. 2nd ed.Chicago, IL: Neal-Schuman, 2013.
53.
AminATownsendSOssenbruggenJ, et al. Fancy a drink in Canary Wharf? A user study on location-based mobile search. In: Proceedings of INTERACT’09, 2009, pp. 736–749. Springer-Verlag, http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/14046/14046A.pdf
54.
BurfordSParkS. The impact of mobile tablet devices on human information behavior. J Document2014; 70(4): 622–639.
55.
ChenLQiL. A diary study of understanding contextual information needs during leisure traveling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on information interaction in context (IIiX), New Brunswick, NJ, 18–21 August 2010, pp. 265–270. New York: ACM Press.
56.
ChurchKSmythB. Understanding the intent behind mobile information needs. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, Sanibel Island, FL, 8–11 February 2009, pp. 247–256. New York: ACM Press.
57.
KarlsonAIqbalSMeyersB, et al. Mobile taskflow in context: a screenshot study of Smartphone usage. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April 2010, pp. 2009–2018. New York: ACM Press.
58.
KomakiDHaraTNishioS. How does mobile context affect people’s web search behavior? A diary study of mobile information needs and search behaviors. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 26th international conference on advanced information networking and applications (AINA), Fukuoka, Japan, 26–29 March 2012, pp. 245–252. New York: IEEE.
59.
SohnTLiKGriswoodW, et al. A diary study of mobile information needs. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, 5–10 April 2008, pp. 433–442. New York: ACM Press.
60.
TangRSolomonP. Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: on the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech2001; 52(8): 676–685.
61.
WhiteHD. Relevance theory and distributions of judgments in document retrieval. Inform Process Manage2017; 53(5): 1080–1102.
62.
ChoJBoyleMKeumH, et al. Media, terrorism, and emotionality: emotional differences in media content and public reactions to the September 11th terrorist attacks. J Broadcast Electron Media2003; 47(3): 309–327.
