In accordance with self-categorization theory, this study predicts that because elite cues affect partisans’ perceptions of group norms, news coverage of political gridlock should influence partisans’ willingness to endorse compromise. Results of two experimental studies, where Republican and Democratic samples read a news story in which group leaders were either willing or unwilling to compromise, largely support our expectations. However, we also find evidence that willingness to compromise can depend on the specific issue context, as well as pre-existing attitudes. These results further our understanding of how media coverage affects the functioning of democracy in the United States.
AbramowitzA. I. (2011). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AbramsD.WetherellM.CochraneS.HoggM. A.TurnerJ. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.
3.
AdayS. (2010). Leading the charge: Media, elites, and the use of emotion in stimulating rally effects in wartime. Journal of Communication, 60, 440-465. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01489.x
4.
BaldassarriD.GelmanA. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 408-446. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1010098
5.
BartlesL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150. doi:10.1023/A:1021226224601
6.
BennettW. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication, 40, 103-125. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02265.x
7.
BrewerM. B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 3-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
CarseyT. M.LaymanG. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds: Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464-477. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00196.x
11.
CarsonJ.CrespinM.FinocchiaroC.RohdeD. (2007). Redistricting and party polarization in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Politics Research, 35, 878-904. doi: 10.1177/1532673X07304263
12.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808-822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
13.
CohenM.KarolD.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 65, 135-150.
15.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 197, 57-79. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000500
16.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J.PopeJ. C. (2006). Culture war?New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
17.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J.PopeJ. C. (2008). Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. Journal of Politics, 70, 556-560. doi:10.1017/S002238160808050X
18.
FranklinC. H.JacksonJ. E. (1983). The dynamics of party identification. The American Political Science Review, 77, 957-973. doi:10.2307/1957569
19.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (2012). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
HarbridgeL.MalhotraN. (2011). Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in Congress: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 494-510. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00517.x
22.
HarbridgeL.MalhotraN.HarrisonB. (2014). Public preferences for bipartisanship in the policymaking process. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39, 327-355. doi:10.1111/lsq.12048
23.
HoggM. A.ReidS. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x
24.
HoggM.TurnerJ.DavidsonB. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of references: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77-100. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1101_6
25.
HollanderB. A. (2008). Tuning out or tuning elsewhere? Partisanship, polarization, and media migration from 1998 to 2006. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 23-40. doi:10.1177/107769900808500103
26.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405-431. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038
27.
JacobsonG. C. (2013). Partisan polarization in American politics: A background paper. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43, 688-708. doi:10.1111/psq.12062
28.
JamiesonK. H.CappellaJ. H. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
KimY. M. (2009). Issue publics in the new information environment: Selectivity, domain specificity, and extremity. Communication Research, 36, 254-284. doi:10.1177/0093650208330253
30.
KrosnickJ. A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12, 59-92. doi:10.1007/BF00992332
31.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 786-802. doi:10.2307/3088434
32.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.GreenJ. C.HerreraR.CoopermanR. (2010). Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review, 104, 324-346. doi:10.1017/S000305541000016X
33.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.HorowitzJ. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83-110. doi:10/11446/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138
34.
LevenduskyM. S. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
LevenduskyM. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science, 57, 611-623. doi:10.1111/ajps.12008
36.
LupuN. (2013). Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 49-64. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00615.x
37.
MackieD. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720-728. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.720
38.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128-145. doi:10.1111/ajps.12089
39.
McCartyN.PooleK.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
McCluskeyM.KimY. M. (2012). Moderatism or polarization? Representation of advocacy groups’ ideology in newspapers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 565-584. doi:10.1177/1077699012455385
41.
MillerP. R.ConoverP. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68, 225-239. doi:10.1177/1065912915577208
42.
MillerW. E.ShanksM. (1996). The new American voters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
MutzD. (2015). In-your-politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
44.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15.
PageB. I.JonesC. C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote. The American Political Science Review, 73, 1071-1089. doi:10.2307/1953990
47.
PetersenM. B.SkovM.SerritzlewS.RamsoyT. (2013). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35, 831-854. doi:10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1
SlothuusR. (2010). When can political parties lead public opinion? Evidence from a natural experiment. Political Communication, 27, 158-177. doi:10.1093/ijpor/13.1.25
50.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
51.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
52.
TerryD. J.HoggM. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776-793. doi:10.1177/0146167296228002
53.
TheriaultS. (2008). Party polarization in Congress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM.OakesReicherP.ReicherS.WetherellM. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
55.
TurnerJ. C.OakesP. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 237-252. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x
56.
WattsM.DomkeD.ShahD.FanD. (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
57.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University 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.
