Researchers recently have begun to examine how hostile media perceptions may promote discursive activities aimed at correcting the media’s perceived negative influence. We use nationally representative survey data to test a moderated-mediation model that finds that hostile media perceptions significantly affect support for climate mitigation policies through the mediator of discussion and that the link between discussion and policy support is moderated in a three-way interaction with social network heterogeneity and political ideology. Discussion in homogeneous social networks increases opinion polarization between liberals and conservatives by intensifying conservatives’ opinions, whereas discussion in heterogeneous social networks decreases polarization by moderating liberals’ opinions.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM.MurphyC. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. Journal of Politics, 74(1), 174-186. doi:10.1017/S002238161100123X
2.
ArendtH. (1968). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. New York, NY: Viking Press.
3.
AriyantoA.HornseyM. J.GalloisC. (2007). Group allegiances and perceptions of media bias taking into account both the perceiver and the source. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 266-279. doi:10.1177/1368430207074733
4.
ArpanL. M.RaneyA. A. (2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 265-281. doi:10.1177/107769900308000203
5.
BaronR. S.HoppeS. I.KaoC. F.BrunsmanB.LinnewehB.RogersD. (1996). Social corroboration and opinion extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 537-560. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.0024
6.
BaumM. A.GussinP. (2008). In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. International Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(1), 1-31.
7.
BinderA. R.DalrympleK. E.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2009). The soul of a polarized democracy testing theoretical linkages between talk and attitude extremity during the 2004 presidential election. Communication Research, 36, 315-340. doi:10.1177/0093650209333023
8.
BurnsteinE.VinokurA. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315-332. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(77)90002-6
9.
ByrneS.HartP. S. (2009). The boomerang effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. In BeckC. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
CallegaroM.DiSograC. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 1008-1032. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn065
11.
ChoiJ.YangM.ChangJ. J. (2009). Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon the roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate. Communication Research, 36, 54-75. doi:10.1177/0093650208326462
12.
CoeK.TewksburyD.BondB. J.DrogosK. L.PorterR. W.YahnA.ZhangY. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58, 201-219. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x
13.
DaltonR. J.BeckP. A.HuckfeldtR. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 111-126. doi:10.2307/2585932
14.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15. doi:10.1086/268763
15.
Delli CarpiniM. X.CookF. L.JacobsL. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
16.
FeldmanL. (2011). Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the hostile media effect. Political Behavior, 33, 407-432. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9139-4
17.
FeldmanL.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 3-31.
18.
FeldmanL.MyersT.HmielowskiJ. D.LeiserowitzA. A. (2014). The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: Testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming. Journal of Communication, 64, 590-611.
19.
FeldmanL.PriceV. (2008). Confusion or enlightenment? How exposure to disagreement moderates the effects of political discussion and media use on candidate knowledge. Communication Research, 35, 61-87. doi:10.1177/0093650207309362
20.
Giner-SorollaR.ChaikenS. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180. doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1008
21.
GuntherA. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25, 486-504. doi:10.1177/009365098025005002
22.
GuntherA. C.ChristenC. T. (2002). Projection or persuasive press? Contrary effects of personal opinion and perceived news coverage on estimates of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 52, 177-195. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02538.x
23.
GuntherA. C.ChristenC. T.LiebhartJ. L.ChiaS. C.-Y. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 295-320. doi:10.1086/322846
24.
GuntherA. C.LiebhartJ. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449-466. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00295.x
25.
GuntherA. C.MillerN.LiebhartJ. L. (2009). Assimilation and contrast in a test of the hostile media effect. Communication Research, 36, 747-764. doi:10.1177/0093650209346804
26.
HabermasJ. (1989). The theory of communicative action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
27.
HansenG. J.KimH. (2011). Is the media biased against me? A meta-analysis of the hostile media effect research. Communication Research Reports, 28, 169-179. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.565280
28.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646
29.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornT. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65-95. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x
31.
HwangH.PanZ.SunY. (2008). Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of mediating role of media indignation. Media Psychology, 11(1), 76-97. doi:10.1080/15213260701813454
32.
JangS. M.HartP. S. (2015). Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, 32, 11-17. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010
33.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
34.
KimK. S. (2011). Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: The hostile media approach. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 690-705. doi:10.1177/0963662510372313
35.
KlofstadC. A.McClurgS. D.RolfeM. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks a comparison of two “Name Generator” procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 462-483. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp032
36.
LaddJ. M. (2011). Why Americans hate the media and how it matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
LevitanL. C.VisserP. S. (2008). The impact of the social context on resistance to persuasion: Effortful versus effortless responses to counter-attitudinal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 640-649. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.03.004
38.
LevitanL. C.VisserP. S. (2009). Social network composition and attitude strength: Exploring the dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1057-1067. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.001
39.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems, 47, 499-522.
40.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social Problems, 50, 348-373.
41.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the american public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155-194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
42.
MorrisJ. S. (2007). Slanted objectivity? Perceived media bias, cable news exposure, and political attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 707-728. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00479.x
43.
MoscoviciS.ZavalloniM. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135. doi:10.1037/h0027568
44.
MutzD. C. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111-126. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004264
45.
MutzD. C. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855. doi:10.2307/3088437
46.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative vs. participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
MyersT. A. (2011). Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 297-310. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.624490
48.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36-66. doi:10.1177/0002716214555474
49.
NisbetM. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 51(2), 12-23.
50.
NisbetM. C.KotcherM. S. (2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30, 328-354.
51.
ParsonsB. M. (2010). Social networks and the affective impact of political disagreement. Political Behavior, 32, 181-204. doi:10.1007/s11109-009-9100-6
52.
PerloffR. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262. doi:10.1177/009365089016002004
53.
PriceV.CappellaJ. N.NirL. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication, 19(1), 95-112. doi:10.1080/105846002317246506
54.
RojasH. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 343-363. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq018
55.
ScheufeleD. A.NisbetM. C.BrossardD.NisbetE. C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21, 315-338. doi:10.1080/10584600490481389
56.
SchmittK. M.GuntherA. C.LiebhartJ. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31, 623-641. doi:10.1177/0093650204269390
57.
SlaterM. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281-303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
58.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice (1st ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
59.
SunsteinC. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
61.
TesserA.ConleeM. C. (1975). Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 262-270. doi:10.1037/h0076292
62.
TsfatiY. (2007). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and minority alienation: The case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 632-651. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00361.x
63.
TsfatiY.CohenJ. (2005). Democratic consequences of hostile media perceptions: The case of Gaza settlers. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(4), 28-51. doi:10.1177/1081180X05280776
64.
TsfatiY.CohenJ.GuntherA. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33, 143-166.
65.
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. 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.
66.
VisserP. S.MirabileR. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 779-795. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.779
67.
WattsM. D.DomkeD.ShahD. V.FanD. P. (1999). Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns explaining public perceptions of a liberal press. Communication Research, 26, 144-175. doi:10.1177/009365099026002003
68.
WojcieszakM.PriceV. (2010). Bridging the divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement affects strong predilections about sexual minorities. Political Psychology, 31, 315-339. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00753.x
