The Opinion Factor: The Effects of Opinionated News on Information Processing and Attitude Change

Feldman, Lauren

doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.565014

Cited by 86 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most convincing evidence for polarization occurs across cable outlets (Fox vs. CNN/MSNBC), with viewers of the former emerging with different beliefs about climate change than viewers of the latter. When taken in concert with other, experimental research (Feldman 2011), this suggests that opinion polarization in the cable news environment occurs most clearly as a function of exposure, as opposed to biased processing of ideological news content. Thus, to the extent that the cable news networks continue to provide partisan content in the quest for a lucrative niche audience, the opportunity for consensus-building and cooperation on global warming-as well as on other critical issues of the day-diminishes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Climate on Cable

Feldman

Maibach

Roser-Renouf

et al. 2011

The International Journal of Press/Politics

Self Cite

339

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines climate change coverage on the three major cable news channels and assesses the relationship between viewership of these channels and beliefs about global warming. Evidence from a content analysis of climate change coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during 2007 and 2008 demonstrates that Fox takes a more dismissive tone toward climate change than CNN and MSNBC. Fox also interviews a greater ratio of climate change doubters to believers. An analysis of 2008 survey data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults finds a negative association between Fox News viewership and acceptance of global warming, even after controlling for numerous potential confounding factors. Conversely, viewing CNN and MSNBC is associated with greater acceptance of global warming. Further analyses reveal that the relationship between cable news viewership (both Fox and CNN/MSNBC) and global warming acceptance is stronger among Republicans than among Democrats. That is, the views of Republicans are strongly linked with the news outlet they watch, regardless of how well that outlet aligns with their political predispositions. In contrast, Democrats don't vary much in their beliefs as a function of cable news use. This asymmetry suggests that some Republicans, who as a group tend to be predisposed toward global warming skepticism, are less skeptical when exposed to information on the reality and urgency of climate change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Climate on Cable

Feldman

Maibach

Roser-Renouf

et al. 2011

The International Journal of Press/Politics

Self Cite

339

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cross‐cutting exposure can increase tolerance toward those who hold different points of view, and can help to keep polarization in check (Mutz, , but see Meffert et al, ). This is not to say that exposure to dissonant ideas changes attitudes or beliefs; results are mixed regarding the persuasive potential of counterattitudinal information (Feldman, ; Miller, ). Yet the preferences evident in this study suggest that media choice does not inevitably lead to attitude‐reinforcing echo chambers or ignorance of others' viewpoints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines selective exposure to political information, arguing that attraction to proattitudinal information and aversion to counterattitudinal information are distinct phenomena, and that the tendency to engage in these behaviors varies by partisanship. Data collected in a strict online experiment support these predictions. Republicans are significantly more likely to engage in selective avoidance of predominantly counterattitudinal information than those with other partisan affiliations, while non-Republicans are significantly more likely to select a story that includes proattitudinal information, regardless of its counterattitudinal content. Individuals across the political spectrum are receptive to predominantly proattitudinal content and to content that offers a mix of views, but the form these preferences take varies by partisanship. The political significance of these findings is discussed.doi: 10.1111/jcom.12105 For much of its history, politically motivated selective exposure has been contested; indeed, many scholars questioned its occurrence (e.g., Chaffee, Saphir, Graf, Sandvig, & Hahn, 2001;Sears & Freedman, 1967). Today, however, the evidence that citizens' news consumption privileges like-minded views over less consonant content is overwhelming (Hart et al., 2009;Stroud, 2011). In an era characterized by unprecedented media choice, uncertainty about the existence of the selective exposure phenomenon has been replaced by questions premised on its existence. Is it on the rise (Garrett, Carnahan, & Lynch, 2013)? What are its consequences (Stroud, 2010)? Under what conditions does it occur (Fischer, Jonas, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt, 2005;Valentino, Banks, Hutchings, & Davis, 2009)? And when and why do partisan differences in selectivity appear (Iyengar, Hahn, Krosnick, & Walker, 2008)?In this paper, we advance our understanding of selective exposure in two ways. First, we offer new evidence in the debate over the need to distinguish between Corresponding author: R. Kelly Garrett; e-mail: garrett.258@osu.edu Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity selective approach, the tendency to seek information consistent with one's prior beliefs, and selective avoidance, a drive to avoid contradictory information. The conventional understanding of selective exposure as the pairing of selective approach with equally strong selective avoidance has been criticized, both theoretically (e.g., Garrett, 2009b) and empirically (e.g., Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2011), but several prominent scholars recently have embraced the classical view (e.g., Bennett & Iyengar, 2008). This study aims to extend earlier scholarship by offering the most stringent experimental test to date of whether selective approach is the stronger tendency.Building on new evidence for the distinction between selective approach and selective avoidance, our second contribution is to examine partisan differences in these phenomena. Recent research has highlighted not only differences in how partisans approach and think about the world (see, for example, Jost...

show abstract

“…Feldman's 2011 study of the persuasive effects of messages from opinionated news sources demonstrated that even partisans can be influenced by exposure to opposing arguments under these contexts 54 .…”

Section: Communicating Climate-model Science To the Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication of climate projections in US media amid politicization of model science

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 2 | SEPTEMBER 2012 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange C limate models expand scientific understanding of the projected impacts of increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases on Earth's systems and serve as decision-making tools in consideration of adaptive and mitigative policy responses 1 . As such, the use of models to generate knowledge about climatic change has been described as "a central focus of climate politics" 2 and also "a lightning rod in the climate debate" 3 . These computer programs, which work through a series of time-stepped operations to solve the mathematical equations representing Earth's climatic processes, have been the target of climate science sceptics who question the validity of their projections 4,5 and the subject of long-standing debate even among non-sceptics over their use for policy decisions [6][7][8] .Under conditions of increasingly variable climatic conditions, decision-makers on all governmental levels will probably rely on model projections for policymaking on multidecadal timescales. Thus criticisms of modelling within climate sceptic arguments, as well as debates over the use of models as tools for informing policy, are directed at an aspect of climate science that is both integral to our understanding of Earth system processes 9 and likely to become increasingly important to societal decisions in adapting to and mitigating climate change 10 .Yet large proportions of the US public are unsure whether climatemodel projections can be trusted, according to a recent nationally representative survey. Of those surveyed in 2010, 64% reported either that they believed that scientists' computer models are too unreliable to predict the climate of the future (41%), or that they did not know whether to trust them (23%) 11 . Moreover, uncertainties both in climate predictions for the next few decades and in longer-range projections may widen with the use of new modelling techniques and as additional climate processes and feedbacks are incorporated to produce more realistic simulations, posing further complications to public communication efforts 12 . Here, we map the outlines of model discourses to identify problems and opportunities for the communication of climate-model science for the purposes of improved decision-making.So far, there seems to be no systematic evaluation of the treatment of climate models and their projections in public discourse, even though they have been politically contentious and are widely misunderstood, based on comparisons with more familiar forecasting tools such as weather models 11 . Popular media have become increasingly responsible for conveying complex science to the public 13 and are a primary source of climate change information for many Computer models generate projections of future climatic conditions that lie at the crux of climate change science and policy, and are increasingly used by decision-makers. Yet their complexity and politicization can hinder the communication of their science, uses and limitatio...

show abstract

The Opinion Factor: The Effects of Opinionated News on Information Processing and Attitude Change

Cited by 86 publications

References 18 publications

Climate on Cable

Climate on Cable

Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption

Communication of climate projections in US media amid politicization of model science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About