This study explores the influence of hostile media perception (HMP) and other antecedents to mothers’ willingness to speak up regarding the issue of breastfeeding, particularly in online environments. An online survey of mothers (N = 455) revealed that mothers are more likely to express opinions about breastfeeding online, and also with friends and family, if they consider media coverage of the issue biased or hostile. In addition, as hypothesized, the personality trait of outspokenness influences mothers’ willingness to speak up and mediates the effect of HMP on communication, although there were conditional effects based on mothers’ past breastfeeding behaviors. Implications are discussed.
ArpanL.RaneyA. A. (2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 265-281.
2.
BarnidgeM.RojasH. (2014). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and political talk: Expanding the corrective action hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 135-156.
3.
BrownJ. D.PeuchaudS. R. (2008). Media and breastfeeding: Friend or foe. International Breastfeeding Journal, 3, 15.
ChaeJ. (2015). “Am I a better mother than you?” Media and 21st-century motherhood in the context of the social comparison theory. Communication Research, 42, 503-525.
7.
ChoiJ.ParkH.-S.ChangJ. J. (2011). Hostile media perception, involvement types, and advocacy behaviors. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 23-39.
8.
ChristenC. T.KannaovakunP.GuntherA. C. (2002). Hostile media perceptions: Partisan assessments of press and public during the 1997 United Parcel Service strike. Political Communication, 19, 423-436.
9.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
FossK. A. (2013). “That’s not a beer bong, it’s a breast pump!” Representations of breastfeeding in prime-time fictional television. Health Communication, 28, 329-340.
13.
FossK. A.SouthwellB. G. (2006). Infant feeding and the media: The relationship between parents’ magazine content and breastfeeding, 1972-2000. International Breastfeeding Journal, 1, 1-9.
14.
FrerichsL.AndsagerJ. L.CampoS.AquilinoM.DyerC. S. (2006). Framing breastfeeding and formula-feeding messages in popular U.S. magazines. Women & Health, 44, 95-118.
15.
GazianoC.O’LearyJ. (1998). Childbirth and infant development knowledge gaps in interpersonal settings. Journal of Health Communication, 3, 29-51.
16.
Giner-SorollaR.ChaikenS. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180.
17.
GrayJ. (2013). Feeding on the web: Online social support in the breastfeeding context. Communication Research Reports, 30, 1-11.
18.
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.
19.
GuntherA. C.EdgerlyS.AkinH.BroeschJ. A. (2012). Partisan evaluation of partisan information. Communication Research, 39, 439-457.
20.
GuntherA. C.SchmittK. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 55-70.
21.
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.
22.
HartP. S.FeldmanL.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2015). Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions: Influences on discussion and opinion polarization in the context of climate change. Science Communication, 37, 506-532.
23.
HartmannT.TanisM. (2013). Examining the hostile media effect as an intergroup phenomenon: The role of in-group identification and status. Journal of Communication, 63, 535-555.
24.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.
25.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
HayesA. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1-22.
27.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451-470.
28.
HeislerJ. M.EllisJ. B. (2008). Motherhood and the construction of “mommy identity”: Messages about motherhood and face negotiation. Communication Quarterly, 56, 445-467.
29.
HendersonL.KitzingerJ.GreenJ. (2000). Representing infant feeding: Content analysis of British media portrayals of bottle feeding and breast feeding. British Medical Journal, 321, 1196-1198.
30.
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, 76-97.
31.
KimS. H.KimH.OhS. H. (2014). Talking about genetically modified (GM) foods in South Korea: The role of the internet in the spiral of silence process. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 713-732.
32.
LasorsaD. L. (1991). Political outspokenness: Factors working against the spiral of silence. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 131-139.
33.
Len-RiosM. E.BhandariM.MedvedevaY. S. (2014). Deliberation of the scientific evidence for breastfeeding online comments as social representations. Science Communication, 36, 778-801.
34.
MatthesJ. (2013). The affective underpinnings of hostile media perceptions exploring the distinct effects of affective and cognitive involvement. Communication Research, 40, 360-387.
35.
MatthesJ.MorrisonK. R.SchemerC. (2010). A spiral of silence for some: Attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication Research, 37, 774-800.
36.
McKeeverB. W.RiffeD.CarpentierF. D. (2012). Perceived hostile media bias, presumed media influence, and opinions about immigrants and immigration. Southern Communication Journal, 77, 420-437.
37.
NekmatE.GonzenbachW. J. (2013). Multiple opinion climates in online forums role of website source reference and within-forum opinion congruency. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 736-756.
38.
NeuwirthK.FrederickE.MayoC. (2007). The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of Communication, 57, 450-468.
39.
PerloffR. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
40.
PerloffR. M. (2015). A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect. Mass Communication and Society, 18, 701-729.
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.
44.
SchmittK. M.GuntherA. C.LiebhartJ. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31, 623-641.
45.
SchulzA.RoesslerP. (2012). The spiral of silence and the internet: Selection of online content and the perception of the public opinion climate in computer-mediated communication environments. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 346-367.
46.
StrileyK. M.Field-SpringerK. (2014). The bad mother police: Theorizing risk orders in the discourses of infant feeding practices. Health Communication, 29, 552-562.
47.
TsfatiY.CohenJ. (2005a). Democratic consequences of hostile media perceptions: The case of Gaza settlers. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10, 28-51.
48.
TsfatiY.CohenJ. (2005b). The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy: The case of Gaza settlers. Communication Research, 32, 794-821.
49.
TsfatiY.StroudN. J.ChotinerA. (2014). Exposure to ideological news and perceived opinion climate testing the media effects component of spiral-of-silence in a fragmented media landscape. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19, 3-23.
50.
ValloneR.RossL.LepperM. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
51.
WillnatL.LeeW.DetenberB. H. (2002). Individual-level predictors of public outspokenness: A test of the spiral of silence theory in Singapore. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 391-412.
52.
WuL.AhnH. A. (2010). Making sense of conflicting health information: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 1-9.
