In the context of adolescent smoking adoption, this study examined the presumed influence hypothesis, a theoretical model suggesting that smoking-related media content may have a significant indirect influence on adolescent smoking via its effect on perceived peer norms. That is, adolescents may assume that smoking-related messages in the mass media will influence the attitudes and behaviors of their peers and these perceptions in turn can influence adolescents' own smoking behaviors. Analyzing data from a sample of 818 middle school students, we found that both pro-and antismoking messages indirectly influenced smoking susceptibility through their perceived effect on peers. However, this indirect effect was significantly stronger for prosmoking messages than for antismoking messages, an outcome that most likely increases adolescents' susceptibility to cigarettes.

No abstract

This experiment examined theoretical questions surrounding the hostile media effectthe tendency of partisans on a controversial issue to see news coverage of that issue as biased in favor of the other side. Using opposing groups of partisans in the debate over genetically modified organisms, we tested the influence of source (journalist vs. college student) and reach (mass media vs. classroom composition) on perceptions of bias. The data revealed effects for both factors. Earlier research supported several processing mechanisms underlying the hostile media effect, but using stringent tests, we found evidence only for a categorization bias.

Partisan groups, highly important actors in public discourse and the democratic process, appear to see mass media content as biased against their own point of view. Although this hostile media effect has been well documented in recent research, little is understood about the mechanisms that might explain it. Three processes have been proposed: (a) selective recall, in which partisans preferentially remember aspects of content hostile to their own side; (b) selective categorization, in which opposing partisans assign different valences to the same content; and (c) different standards, in which opposing partisans agree on content but see information favoring the other side as invalid or irrelevant. Using new field-experiment tests with groups of partisans who either supported (n = 87) or opposed (n = 63) the use of genetically modified foods, we found evidence of selective categorization and different standards generally. However, only selective categorization appeared to explain the hostile media effect.

Recent empirical research has vividly demonstrated the hostile media effect—the tendency for individuals highly involved in a controversial issue to see media coverage of that issue as hostile to their own point of view. This type of contrast bias—along with its assimilation counterpart—is hypothesized to stem from preexisting partisan attitudes coupled with other explanatory factors, including perceived reach of the message and characteristics of the source. To test these predictions, we recruited partisan respondents who were either Native American or sympathetic to native issues. Participants ( N = 152) read information, varying in apparent circulation (low, medium and high reach) and source (friendly vs. not friendly) characteristics, on the issue of genetically modified wild rice, a controversial topic for native people in the upper Midwest. Variations in reach produced a linear trend in judgments of bias in the predicted direction. However, overall evaluations tended toward assimilation rather than contrast effects, and two distinct dimensions of partisanship produced surprising and provocative results.