Modeling Partisan Media Effects in the 2014 U.S. Midterm Elections

Abstract

This study tested partisan media effects in the 2014 U.S. midterm elections. A survey was distributed to 992 residents of Georgia, Iowa, and North Carolina. A novel multigroup latent variable structural equation model tested the direct, indirect, and conditional effects of political interest, partisan media use, political information efficacy, and partisanship on affective polarization. Findings demonstrated a polarizing effect of pro-partisan media, a depolarizing effect of cross-cutting media, and an indirect effect of political interest on polarization through partisan media use. There was no evidence that the effects of partisan media were mediated through political confidence or moderated by partisanship.

Keywords

political polarization partisan media selective exposure political campaigns midterm elections

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ansolabehere

Schaffner

B. F.

(2014). Does survey mode still matter? Political Analysis, 22, 285-303. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt025

Baum

M. A.

Groeling

(2008). New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25, 345-365. doi:10.1080/10584600802426965

Blumler

J. G.

Katz

(1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Brundidge

Garrett

R. K.

Rojas

Gil de Zúñiga

(2014). Political participation and ideological news online: Differential gains and differential losses in a presidential election cycle. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 464-486. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.821492

Dilliplane

(2011). All the news you want to hear: The impact of partisan news exposure on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 287-316. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr006

Dimitrova

D. V.

(2016). The 2014 midterm elections on local television: Frames, sources, and valence. In Hendricks

J. A.

Schill

(Eds.), Communication and midterm elections: Media, message, and mobilization (pp. 101-114). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dvir Gvirsman

. (2014). It’s not that we don’t know, it’s that we don’t care: Explaining why selective exposure polarizes attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 74-97. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.816738

Eveland

W. P.

(2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28, 571-601. doi:10.1177/009365001028005001

Eveland

W. P.

(2002). News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 26-40. doi:10.1177/107769900207900103

10.

Feldman

(2011). The opinion factor: The effects of opinionated news on information processing and attitude change. Political Communication, 28, 163-181. doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.565014

11.

Feldman

Myers

T. A.

Hmielowski

J. D.

Leiserowitz

(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. doi:10.1111/jcom.12108

12.

Garrett

K. R.

Dvir Gvirsman

Johnson

B. K.

Tsfati

Neo

Dal

(2014). Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40, 309-332. doi:10.1111/hcre.12028

13.

Garrett

R. K.

Stroud

N. J.

(2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and counterattitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64, 680-701. doi:10.1111/jcom.12105

14.

Geldhof

G. J.

Pornprasertmanit

Schoemann

A. M.

Little

T. D.

(2012). Orthogonalizing through residual centering: Extended applications and caveats. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 27-46. doi:10.1177/0013164412445473

15.

Hendricks

J. A.

Schill

(2016). Communication and midterm elections: Media, message, and mobilization. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

16.

Hetherington

M. J.

Weiler

J. D.

(2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Hill

S. J.

Vavreck

Zaller

(2007). The opt-in internet panel: Survey mode, sampling methodology and the implications for political research. Unpublished paper, University of California, Los Angeles.

18.

Holbert

R. L.

Grill

(2015). Clarifying and expanding the use of confirmatory factor analysis in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 292-319. doi:10.1177/1077699015583718

19.

Holbert

R. L.

Stephenson

M. T.

(2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 556-572. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4704_5

20.

Hornsey

M. L.

(2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 204-222.

21.

Iyengar

Sood

Lelkes

(2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405-431. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038

22.

Iyengar

Westwood

S. J.

(2014). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690-707.

23.

Jamieson

K. H.

Cappella

J. N.

(2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

24.

Jennings

Galarza

R. A.

Warner

B. R.

(2016). Political polarization in the 2014 U.S. midterm elections. In Hendricks

J. A.

Schill

(Eds.), Media, message, and mobilization: Communication and the 2014 midterm elections (pp. 83-97). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

25.

Jones

D. A.

(2002). The polarizing effect of new media messages. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 158-174. doi:10.1093/ijpor/14.2.158

26.

Kaid

L. L.

McKinney

M. S.

Tedesco

J. C.

(2007). Political information efficacy and young voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1093-1111. doi:10.1177/0002764207300040

27.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

28.

Knobloch-Westerwick

(2012). Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election. Journal of Communication, 62, 628-642. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01651.x

29.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Johnson

B. K.

Westerwick

(2015). Confirmation bias in online searches: Impacts of selective exposure before an election on political attitude strength and shifts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 171-187. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12105

30.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Kleinman

S. B.

(2012). Preelection selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus information utility. Communication Research, 39, 170-193. doi:10.1177/0093650211400597

31.

Lee

A. M.

(2013). News audiences revisited: Theorizing the link between audience motivations and news consumption. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 57, 300-317. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.816712

32.

Levendusky

(2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

33.

McLeod

J. M.

Kosicki

G. M.

McLeod

D. M.

(1994). The expanding boundaries of political communication effects. In Bryant

Zillman

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 123-162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

34.

Mutz

D. C.

(2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Prior

(2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/

37.

Slater

M. 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

38.

Stroud

N. J.

(2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60, 556-576. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x

39.

Stroud

N. J.

(2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

40.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

41.

Taber

C. S.

Lodge

(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

42.

Tajfel

Turner

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 74, 33-47. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5

43.

Tsfati

Nir

(2017). Frames and reasoning: Two pathways from selective exposure to affective polarization. International Journal of Communication, 11, 301-322.

44.

Warner

B. R.

(2010). Segmenting the electorate: The effects of exposure to political extremism online. Communication Studies, 61, 430-444. doi:10.1080/10510974.2010.497069

45.

Wei

(2008). News media use and knowledge about the 2006 U.S. midterm elections: Why exposure matters in voter learning. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 347-362. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn032