Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines the moderating role of the context of social opinion in hostile media perception and its effect on partisan audiences in polarized politics. An online experiment (N = 574), conducted in the US, manipulated the number of congruent/incongruent comments and emojis on social media posts discussing abortion (i.e., pro-choice versus pro-life Facebook posts) to create three distinct opinion contexts (i.e., congruent, balanced, and incongruent). The results indicate that perceived bias gaps between pro-attitudinal and counter-attitudinal posts were reduced in the condition of incongruent context. Furthermore, the study found that the incongruent context mitigates discomfort toward out-party supporters and political participation intention through reducing the perceived bias, whereas the congruent context intensifies them. Implications for media bias perceptions and political polarization are discussed in terms of intergroup relations.

Keywords

opinion diversity hostile media effect corrective action affective polarization intergroup relation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ariyanto

Hornsey

M. J.

Gallois

(2007). Group allegiances and perceptions of media bias: Taking into account both the perceiver and the source. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207074733

Arpan

L. M.

Raney

A. A.

(2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900308000203

Barnidge

Rojas

(2014). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and political talk: Expanding the corrective action hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edto32

Barnidge

Rojas

Beck

P. A.

Schmitt-Beck

(2020). Comparative corrective action: Perceived media bias and political action in 17 countries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(4), 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz043

Bennett

W. L.

Iyengar

(2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x

Choi

Yang

Chang

J. 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(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208326462

Chung

Munno

G. J.

Moritz

(2015). Triggering participation: Exploring the effects of third-person and hostile media perceptions on online participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.037

Cialdini

R. B.

(2021). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.

Cooks

E. J.

Bolland

(2021). Hostile media perception on Twitter: The effect of mediated social identity cues on biased perception. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 65(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2021.1996362

10.

Druckman

J. N.

Levendusky

M. S.

(2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003

11.

Eveland

W. P.

Jr. Shah

D. V.

(2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00318

12.

Gearhart

Moe

Zhang

(2020). Hostile media bias on social media: Testing the effect of user comments on perceptions of news bias and credibility. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.185

13.

Gunther

A. C.

Christen

C. T.

Liebhart

J. L.

Chia

S. C.-Y.

(2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(3), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1086/322846

14.

Gunther

A. C.

McLaughlin

Gotlieb

M. R.

Wise

(2017). Who says what to whom: Content versus source in the hostile media effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw009

15.

Gunther

A. C.

Schmitt

(2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02613.x

16.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

17.

Hewstone

Rubin

Willis

(2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109

18.

Hogg

M. A.

Reid

S. A.

(2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x

19.

Hyun

K. D.

Seo

(2021). The effects of HMP and TPP on political participation in the partisan media context. Communication Research, 48(5), 665–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218820229

20.

Iyengar

Krupenkin

(2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487

21.

Iyengar

Sood

Lelkes

(2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038

22.

Kim

(2021). Facebook news sharing, hostile perceptions of news content, and political participation. Social Media+ Society, 7(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211044239

23.

Kim

Hwang

(2019). When partisans see media coverage as hostile: The effect of uncivil online comments on hostile media effect. Media Psychology, 22(6), 845–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1554492

24.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Johnson

B. K.

(2014). Likeminded exposure for better or worse: Its mediating role for online news’ impact on political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12036

25.

Lee

E.-J.

(2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x

26.

Lee

E.-J.

Jang

Y. J.

(2010). What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37(6), 825–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210376189

27.

Lee

E.-J.

Jang

Y. J.

Chung

(2021). When and how user comments affect news readers’ personal opinion: Perceived public opinion and perceived news position as mediators. Digital Journalism, 9(1), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1837638

28.

Lee

F. L. F.

(2018). The spillover effects of political scandals: The moderating role of cynicism and social media communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(3), 714–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017723604

29.

Lee

J. H.

(2015). The effect of news audience’s biased media perception on their evaluation of the media’s fairness: A comparative analysis among congenial, neutral, and hostile media. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 59(1), 7–36.

30.

Lee

Kim

(2023). Perceived influence of partisan news and online news participation: Third-person effect, hostile media phenomenon, and cognitive elaboration. Communication Research, 50(7), 854–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221127494

31.

Levendusky

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

32.

Lord

C. G.

Ross

Lepper

M. R.

(1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098

33.

Matheson

Dursun

(2001). Social identity precursors to the hostile media phenomenon: Partisan perceptions of coverage of the Bosnian conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(2), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004002003

34.

Matthes

(2013). The affective underpinnings of hostile media perceptions: Exploring the distinct effects of affective and cognitive involvement. Communication Research, 40(3), 360–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420255

35.

Matthes

Knoll

Valenzuela

Hopmann

D. N.

von Sikorski

(2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Political Communication, 36(4), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1619638

36.

McLeod

D. M.

Wise

Perryman

(2017). Thinking about the media: A review of theory and research on media perceptions, media effects perceptions, and their consequences. Review of Communication Research, 5, 35–83.

37.

Mutz

D. C.

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

38.

Perloff

R. M.

(2015). A three-decade retrospective on the hostile media effect. Mass Communication and Society, 18(6), 701–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1051234

39.

Reid

S. A.

(2012). A self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01647.x

40.

Rojas

(2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq018

41.

Shah

D. V.

Cho

Nah

Gotlieb

M. R.

Hwang

Lee

N.-J.

Scholl

R. M.

McLeod

D. M.

(2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00363.x

42.

Shah

D. V.

McLeod

D. M.

Rojas

Cho

Wagner

M. W.

Friedland

L. A.

(2017). Revising the communication mediation model for a new political communication ecology. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12115

43.

Sherif

C. W.

Sherif

(1967). Attitude, ego-involvement, and change. Wiley.

44.

Teorell

Torcal

Montero

J. R.

(2007). Political participation. In Van Deth

J. W.

Montero

J. R.

Westholm

(Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis (pp. 334–357). Routledge.

45.

Tsfati

Cohen

(2005). Democratic consequences of hostile media perceptions: The case of Gaza settlers. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(4), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X05280776

46.

Vallone

R. P.

Ross

Lepper

M. 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(3), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577

47.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

H. E.

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.

48.

Vraga

E. K.

Tully

(2015). Media literacy messages and hostile media perceptions: Processing of nonpartisan versus partisan political information. Mass Communication and Society, 18(4), 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.1001910

49.

von Sikorski

Heiss

Matthes

. (2020). How political scandals affect the electorate: Tracing the eroding and spillover effects of scandals with a panel study. Political Psychology, 41(3), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12638

50.

Walther

J. B.

DeAndrea

Kim

Anthony

J. C.

(2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01384.x

51.

Wojcieszak

Bimber

Feldman

Stroud

N. J.

(2016). Partisan news and political participation: Exploring mediated relationships. Political Communication, 36(2), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1051608

52.

Yegiyan

N. S.

(2015). Explicating the emotion spillover effect. Journal of Media Psychology, 27(3), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000164

53.

Yun

G. W.

Park

S.-Y.

Lee

Flynn

M. A.

(2018). Hostile media or hostile source? Bias perception of shard news. Social Science Computer Review, 36(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316684481

54.

Zheng

(2021). News consumption and affective polarization in Taiwan: The mediating roles of like-minded discussion and relative hostile media perception. The Social Science Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2021.1933877

The role of opinion diversity in the hostile media effect: Partisan exposure on social media,affective polarization,and political participation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References