This article examines when partisan media effects occur during presidential campaigns. I argue that partisan media are most likely to influence candidate impressions early in the election cycle, when voters have less crystallized impressions of the candidates and are less motivated to defend their party’s nominee. Using multiple methods and two large-scale surveys spanning 2008, I show that Fox News affected favorability toward Barack Obama during the first five months of the election year, but those effects largely disappeared over the last five months. The results varied by political knowledge, however, as Fox News affected low-knowledge viewers throughout the entire year, but only affected high-knowledge viewers early in the election cycle. These results provide important new evidence on how partisan media affect viewers and when those effects occur during a presidential election.
AbramowitzAllen. 2012. The Polarized Public: Why Our Government Is so Dysfunctional. New York: Pearson Longman.
2.
ArceneauxKevinJohnsonMartin. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BarkerDavid C.1999. “Rushed Decisions: Political Talk Radio and Vote Choice, 1994-1996.”Journal of Politics61 (3): 527–39.
4.
BartelsLarry M.1993. “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure.”American Political Science Review87 (2): 267–85.
5.
BaumMatthew A.GroelingTim. 2009. “Shot by the Messenger: Partisan Cues and Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War.”Political Behavior31 (2): 157–86.
6.
BennettLance W.IyengarShanto. 2008. “A New Era of Minimal Effects? Changing the Foundations of Political Communication.”Journal of Communication58 (4): 707–31.
7.
ClintonJoshua D.EnamoradoTed. 2014. “The National News Media’s Effect on Congress: How Fox News Affected Elites in Congress.”Journal of Politics76 (4): 928–43.
8.
DaltonRussell J.BeckPaul A.HuckfeldtRobert. 1998. “Partisan Cues and the Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential Election.”American Political Science Review92 (1): 111–26.
9.
DilliplaneSusanna. 2011. “All the News You Want to Hear: The Impact of Partisan News Exposure on Political Participation.”Public Opinion Quarterly75 (2): 278–316.
10.
DilliplaneSusanna. 2014. “Activation, Conversion or Reinforcement? The Impact of Partisan News Exposure on Vote Choice.”American Journal of Political Science58 (1): 79–94.
11.
DilliplaneSusannaGoldmanSeth K.MutzDiana C.2013. “Televised Exposure to Politics: New Measures for a Fragmented Media Environment.”American Journal of Political Science57 (1): 236–48.
12.
EntmanRobert M.1989. “How the Media Affect What People Think: An Information Processing Approach.”Journal of Politics51 (2): 347–70.
13.
ErisenCengizLodgeMiltonTaberCharles S.2014. “Affective Contagion in Effortful Political Thinking.”Political Psychology35 (2): 187–206.
14.
FeldmanLauren. 2011. “The Opinion Factor: The Effects of Opinionated News on Information Processing and Attitude Change.”Political Communication28 (2): 163–81.
15.
FestingerLeon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
16.
GoldmanSeth K.MutzDiana C.DilliplaneSusanna. 2013. “All Virtue Is Relative: A Response to Prior.”Political Communication30 (4): 635–53.
17.
HolbrookAllyson L.KrisnickJon A.VisserPenny S.GardnerWendi L.CacioppoJohn T.2001. “Attitudes toward Presidential Candidates and Political Parties: Initial Optimism, Initial First Impressions, and a Focus on Flaws.”American Journal of Political Science45 (4): 930–50.
18.
KlapperJoseph T.1960. The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press.
19.
LauRichard R.RedlawskDavid P.2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
LevenduskyMatthew S.2013. How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
LodgeMiltonMcGrawKathleenStrohPatrick. 1989. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.”American Political Science Review83 (2): 399–419.
22.
LodgeMiltonTaberCharles S.2005. “The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis.”Political Psychology26:455–82.
23.
McGrawKathleen M.LodgeMiltonStrohPatrick. 1990. “On-Line Processing in Candidate Evaluation: The Effects of Issue Order, Issue Importance, and Sophistication.”Political Behavior12 (1): 41–58.
24.
MillerJoanne M.KrosnickJon A.2000. “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source.”American Journal of Political Science44 (2): 301–15.
25.
MitchellDona-Gene. 2014. “Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Assessing How Timing and Repetition of Scandal Information Affects Candidate Evaluations.”Political Psychology35 (5): 679–701.
26.
MorrisJonathan S.FranciaPeter L.2010. “Cable News, Public Opinion, and the 2004 Party Conventions.”Political Research Quarterly63 (4): 834–49.
27.
NelsonThomas E.ClawsonRosalee A.OxleyZoe. 1997. Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review91 (3): 567–84.
28.
PageBenjamin I.ShapiroRobert Y.DempseyGlenn R.1987. “What Moves Public Opinion.”American Political Science Review81 (1): 23–43.
29.
PriorMarkus. 2013. “The Challenge of Measuring Media Exposure: Reply to Dilliplane, Goldman, and Mutz.”Political Communication30 (4): 620–34.
30.
PriorMarkus. 2014. “Media and Political Polarization.”Annual Review of Political Science16:101–27.
SmithGlenSearlesKathleen. 2013. “Fair and Balanced News or a Difference of Opinion? Why Opinion Shows Matter for Media Effects.”Political Research Quarterly66 (2): 671–84.
33.
SmithGlenSearlesKathleen. 2014. “Who Let the (Attack) Dogs Out? New Evidence for Partisan Media Effects.”Public Opinion Quarterly78 (1): 71–99.
34.
StroudNatalie. 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.”American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 755–69.
36.
TurnerJoel. 2007. “The Messenger Overwhelming the Message: Ideological Cues and Perceptions of Bias in Television News.”Political Behavior29 (4): 441–64.
37.
WestinDrewBlagovPavel S.HarenskiKeithKiltsClintHamannStephan. 2006. “Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election.”Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience18 (11): 1947–58.
38.
WlezienChristopherEriksonRobert S.2002. “The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns.”Journal of Politics64 (4): 969–93.
39.
ZallerJohn. R.1996. “The Myth of a Massive Media Impact Revisited: New Support for a Discredited Idea.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, edited by MutzD.SnidermanP.BrodyR.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
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.
