memorable encounters: ideology, information acquisition, and television news
TRANSCRIPT
Ma
JW
a
ARRAA
wtnc(hwpHtw2
venapp
0d
The Social Science Journal 49 (2012) 9–19
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Social Science Journal
j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /sosc i j
emorable encounters: Ideology, information acquisition,nd television news
oel Turnerestern Kentucky University, Department of Political Science, 1906 College Heights Blvd, Bowling Green, KY 42101, USA
r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 14 January 2011eceived in revised form 22 July 2011ccepted 2 August 2011vailable online 8 November 2011
a b s t r a c t
Many consumers of television news perceive the ideological position held by certain net-works as being either consonant with, or dissonant from, their own political beliefs. Thisraises the question of how the perceived consonance or dissonance of media sources influ-ences the viewer’s ability to acquire and recall information. It is possible that being exposedto a consonant media source could lead an individual to pay more attention, whereas theindividual would be more inclined to dismiss a dissonant media source. In contrast, how-
ever, it is also possible that an individual may pay extra attention to the dissonant mediasource because it presents a perspective that differs from the one that individual currentlyholds. Utilizing an experimental research design, I am able to demonstrate that individualsare better able to acquire and recall information presented to them by a media source thatthey perceive to be ideologically dissonant from their own political position.ocial S
© 2011 Western SAmerican television viewers have a diverse set of beliefsith regard to the ideological predispositions of different
elevision news networks. Many viewers perceive certainetworks as being consonant with their individual politi-al leanings, while they perceive others as being dissonantTurner, 2007). As a result, the conventional wisdom wouldold that, in order to achieve cognitive expediency, viewersould be drawn to the television news networks that theyerceive to be more consonant with their political beliefs.owever, this conventional wisdom is certainly not set-
led, as there is an ongoing debate over whether, and tohat extent, media selectivity occurs (Frey, 1986; Stroud,
007).The varying perceptions of the ideological nature of tele-
ision news networks, as well as the debate regarding thextent to which news network selectivity occurs, raises aumber of interesting questions regarding how individu-
ls react to viewing content from news sources that theyerceive to be consonant with, or dissonant from, theirolitical positions. One such question is pursued here: areE-mail address: [email protected]
362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Western Social Science Association. Publioi:10.1016/j.soscij.2011.08.001
cience Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
individuals better able to acquire and retain informationpresented to them by a news network that they believeto be ideologically consonant with their individual beliefsor by one that they believe to be ideologically dissonantfrom their beliefs? This question is important because dis-seminating information to the public is the primary jobof the news media. Likewise, acquiring information is a,or more likely the, central reason that people follow thenews. Therefore, the extent to which citizens acquire andretain information presented to them on the news speaksdirectly to how well this vital information system is func-tioning.
Compelling arguments can be made to support both the-ses. It is plausible that individuals would remember moreinformation presented to them from what they perceiveto be a consonant source, as this information would rein-force their existing political beliefs. Such information iseasier to process, and research into cognitive sophisticationindicates that the more people know about a subject, the
easier it is for them to assimilate new information. How-ever, it is also plausible that individuals remember moreinformation presented to them from what they perceiveto be a dissonant source because the sheer fact that theyshed by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
cience Jo
10 J. Turner / The Social Sperceive the source to be dissonant may lead them to becognitively engaged, on guard, and potentially ready tocounterargue.
This study examines the impact of the perceived ide-ological consonance or dissonance of a television newssource on an individual’s ability to acquire and recall infor-mation. I will begin with a review of the existing literaturethat has touched on the influence of consonant and disso-nant information sources. I will then provide a discussionof the experimental design and measurement techniquesutilized in this study, report the results of my hypothesistests, and conclude with a discussion of the theoretical andpractical implications of these findings.
1. Theoretical background
There is evidence suggesting that people arrive at polit-ical decisions through an online process (Lodge, McGraw,& Stroh, 1989; Lodge, Steenbergen, & Brau, 1995; McGraw,Lodge, & Stroh, 1990) wherein they update their prefer-ences by taking in information, integrating it into theirdecision making process, and then allowing this informa-tion to fade as new information is introduced. While thesefindings indicate that one’s ability to recall information isnot the sole basis for political decision making, memorycertainly should not be ignored. Voters make some eval-uations as they go, but memory serves to facilitate choice(Lau & Redlawsk, 2006; Lodge & Taber, 2005; Redlawsk,2001). In addition, political experts are in a better positionto engage in online processing (McGraw et al., 1990), whichindicates that political novices would be more likely torely on memory-based processes. Because most Americanswould not be classified as political experts, it is importantthat we understand the dynamics of information acquisi-tion and recall.
Many social psychologists would argue that peoplewill remember consonant information more easily thandissonant information, largely due to reliance on the con-geniality hypothesis (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, 1998). Thishypothesis holds that individuals will welcome infor-mation that is consistent with their beliefs and eitheravoid or ignore inconsistent information. Several studieshave supported the wisdom of this hypothesis. Exam-inations of selectivity theory have demonstrated thatnews outlet selectivity occurs to some extent (Axelrod,1973; Katz, 1981; Klapper, 1960; McGuire, 1985; Stroud,2007; Sweeney & Gruber, 1984). These findings sup-port the idea that many selectively expose themselvesto like-minded media sources and content. Also, in theirwell-known experiment, Levine and Murphy (1943; seealso Edwards, 1941) found that when pro- and anti-communist respondents were presented with pro- andanti-Soviet Union information, the pro-communist grouprecalled more pro-Soviet Union information, and theanti-communist group recalled more anti-Soviet Unioninformation.
Proponents of balance theory (Heider, 1946; Newcomb,
1953) would also support the idea that individuals aremore apt to remember information presented to them bywhat they perceive to be a consonant media source. Bal-ance theory is a motivational theory of attitude formationurnal 49 (2012) 9–19
wherein the drive toward consistency is the motive for psy-chological balance. Because psychological balance is mosteasily achieved by accepting consonant information anddismissing dissonant information, this theory predicts thatperceived dissonance would negatively influence recall.In addition, research on cognitive dissonance (Festinger,1957) supports the notion that individuals should be bet-ter able to acquire and retain information presented bywhat they perceive to be consonant media sources. Cogni-tive dissonance refers to the mental tension resulting fromindividuals holding contradictory thoughts. This tensionmotivates individuals to reduce the amount of dissonancebetween cognitions. Dismissing or ignoring the dissonantinformation is the most readily available method of reduc-tion. Because the average American is often described as acognitive miser, the likelihood is that most will take thispath in reducing their individual level of dissonance. Thisidea is supported by those who question whether learningeven takes place as a result of citizens encountering disso-nant political information (Cook, Jacobs, & Barabas, 1999;Gastil & Dillard, 1999).
In examining how individuals deal with schema-consistent and schema-inconsistent information, Fiske andTaylor (1991) found that individuals were better ableto process schema-consistent information. Research onracial stereotypes supports this notion. Hurwitz and Peffley(1997) demonstrated that these stereotypes, often evenin the face of counter-stereotypical information, playeda significant role in biasing respondents’ perceptions ofwelfare recipients and as a result their evaluations of polit-ical programs designed to assist them. The same logiccould be applied to television news. If viewers believea certain news network is dissonant from their politicalposition, those viewers are likely to maintain that belief,and thus not give much consideration to the inconsis-tent information which they believe the news networkpresents.
Research examining emotional processing and mem-ory also points to individuals being in a better positionto process information from a consonant source. In anexamination of the dispositional system of emotional pro-cessing, Zajonc (1994) found that people respond withthe most enthusiasm to consistent information. In addi-tion, Carver (2004) found that individuals respond withanger and frustration when presented with informationthat is not consistent with their expectations. These find-ings point to individuals being more likely to acquire andretain information presented to them by what is deemedto be a consonant source.
Although an impressive amount of research supportsthe idea that viewers should be less apt to acquire andretain information presented by an allegedly dissonantnews source, the debate is far from settled. The issue ofmedia selectivity has yet to be completely resolved, aswhether, and to what extent, individuals choose to exposethemselves to politically consonant media sources is still upfor debate (Freedman & Sears, 1965; Frey, 1986; Zillmann &
Bryant, 1985). Recent evidence actually suggests that selec-tivity does not occur to the extent once thought, as surveyshave demonstrated that the viewership of Fox News Chan-nel (FNC) and CNN are fairly diverse from an ideological
cience Jo
ataipotmcwl(DP1S
ascaatn&etbs2ttaa1
p(AiooioapmtarKL
t
Htbc
stories that were chosen were about the Iraq War, nuclearinspections in Libya, mad cow disease, illegal aliens, andSaddam Hussein.3 Each set of stories had a running time ofroughly ten minutes.
2 The State of the News Media 2004 study, the results of which canbe accessed at www.journalism.org, confirmed that foreign policy storieswere a major part of cable news broadcasts when this study was con-
J. Turner / The Social S
nd partisan perspective.1 Also, additional examinations ofhe congeniality hypothesis bring this theory into question,s these studies have been unable to replicate early find-ngs on information acquisition. Some were only able toroduce null effects (Greenwald & Sakumura, 1967), whilethers demonstrated that the circumstances surroundinghe reception dictated whether congenial information was
ore memorable (Jones & Aneshansel, 1956). In someases, scholars demonstrated that uncongenial informationas actually more memorable because people were more
ikely to engage the information in an in-depth mannerChaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989; Ditto & Lopez, 1992;itto, Scepansky, Munro, Apanovitch, & Lockhart, 1998;etty and Cacioppo, 1979; Eagly, Serena, Shelley, & Kelly,999; Eagly, Partick, Serena, & Shelley, 2001; Edwards &mith, 1996).
In addition, many scholars would argue that a siz-ble segment of the population turns to the mediapecifically to obtain what they perceive to be politi-ally dissonant information. Research on social networksnd cross-cutting information has shown that individu-ls strive to avoid confrontation in their life, which leadshem to choose politically homogenous discussion part-ers (Bennett, Fisher, & Resnick, 1994; Huckfeldt, Johnson,
Sprague, 2004; Mutz, 2006; Ulbig & Funk, 1999). How-ver, the same homogeneity is not as prevalent with regardo citizens’ choice of media sources, as they appear toe more willing to expose themselves to dissonant newsources than dissonant political discussion partners (Mutz,002; Mutz & Martin, 2001). Additional research suggestshat this exposure to dissonant views does not discouragehe accommodation of the new information (Lane, 1962)nd, in fact, may encourage greater personal deliberationnd reflection about one’s views (Arendt, 1968; Habermas,989).
Finally, this work has received support from socialsychologists examining controversy versus concurrenceLowry & Johnson, 1981; Smith, Johnson, & Johnson, 1981).ccording to these scholars, controversy exists when one
ndividual’s information or ideas are at odds with thosef another individual (or other individuals). Concurrenceccurs when individuals seek to avoid this informationn order to reach agreement. In an experimental studyf general decision-making, these scholars found thatn emphasis on controversy over concurrence-seekingromotes greater overall mastery and retention of infor-ation. Recent work on emotional processing supports
hese findings, as several scholars have argued that neg-tive sentiment enhances the propensity of individuals toecall information (D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2005;ensinger, 2007; Redlawsk & Civettini, 2009; Revelle &
oftus, 1990).The important point to take away from this review ishat the results of previous research have at best been
1 A poll conducted on behalf of Media Matters for America by the Garin-art-Yang Research Group, Washington, D.C., in November 2004 indicated
hat at least thirty-five percent of the American public perceived FNC aseing overtly conservative, and at least twenty-six percent of the Ameri-an public perceived CNN as being liberally biased.
urnal 49 (2012) 9–19 11
mixed with regard to the question of whether dissonancefunctions as a positive or a negative force with regard toinformation acquisition and retention. This is a key ques-tion that needs to be addressed. While we know thatselectivity does take place to an extent, it is also clear thata non-trivial number of individuals expose themselves todissonant media sources. This knowledge makes testing thecongeniality hypothesis important. It is essential to knowwhether viewers are doing themselves a service (or a dis-service) by consuming news provided to them by dissonant(or consonant) news media sources. I have designed anexperiment that will contribute to this literature by pro-viding additional insight into this vital question.
2. Experimental design
An experimental research design was implemented toexamine this question. This experiment involved expos-ing respondents to content attributed to news sourceswhose ideological reputation ranged from consonant withto dissonant from the political ideology held by the sub-jects. After being exposed to these news sources therespondents were asked, among other things, how muchinformation they could recall from two of the five storiespresented.
The key aspect of this design involved the creation ofthe news broadcasts. These broadcasts were constructedby creating replications of original FNC and CNN contentand then manipulating the network attributions. The firststep in this process involved selecting stories from FNCand CNN to show to the experimental subjects. I reviewedseveral hours of videotaped footage from both networksand selected five stories from each network for this anal-ysis. This was admittedly a subjective decision, as therewere stories not chosen that could have easily been sub-stituted for the ones that were. Those ultimately chosenwere ones that closely mimicked the coverage one wouldsee on a broadcast during the period in which this studywas conducted.2 The CNN stories that were chosen wereabout the Iraq War, nuclear inspections in North Korea, afemale suicide bomber in Israel, a newly proposed “sup-port of marriage” initiative, and Saddam Hussein. The FNC
ducted, as this type of story constituted 24% and 21% of the broadcasttime on CNN and Fox News Channel, respectively.
3 A number of factors were considered when deciding which storiesfrom the videotaped broadcasts to select for this analysis. Stories that fea-tured highly recognizable “talking head pundits”, were not used. Thesepundits present “commentary” or “news analysis,” whereas my concernis whether viewers are better able to acquire and recall information fromthe actual hard news stories. Second, stories that contained a substan-tial amount of back and forth banter between the reporter and anchorwere not chosen because of the logistical difficulties of replicating theanchor/reporter interaction. The final selection of stories came from thoseleft over after the initial elimination process.
cience Jo
dent. Nearly one-third of the sample identified their raceas something other than white, and the sample was almostperfectly split between men and women. The average
12 J. Turner / The Social S
Creating believable replications was essential in order tomaximize the validity of this examination. Therefore, thebroadcasts were created at a professional television stu-dio with the assistance of an experienced television newsanchor. Using a professional anchor gave the broadcastsan authentic appearance, which lessened the probabil-ity that respondents could determine that they were notwatching an original news broadcast.4 The anchor readtranscripts from the original broadcasts in order to dupli-cate the language used. The manipulations were achievedby the broadcaster vocally identifying with which newsorganization he was affiliated. At the outset of the broad-cast, the anchor would “sign on” by stating he was either“reporting for CNN” or “reporting for Fox News Channel.”This network affiliation would be reinforced during thebroadcast through the use of phrases that conveyed attri-bution but did not alter the ideological tone, such as “CNNhas learned. . .” or “sources have told Fox News that. . .”.Finally, the anchor signed off using the tagline for eachnetwork, stating that he had been either “reporting forCNN, the most trusted name in news” or “reporting forFox News, where you always get fair and balanced cov-erage.”
Four sets of stories were shown to the study’s partici-pants. They either saw a version of the CNN stories whereinthe anchor identified himself as being affiliated with CNN,a version of the CNN stories wherein the anchor identifiedhimself as being affiliated with FNC, a version of the FNCstories wherein the anchor identified himself as being affil-iated with CNN, or a version of the FNC stories whereinthe anchor identified himself as being affiliated withFNC.
A key question surrounding this design involves thechoice to manipulate network attribution. This was donebecause, in the real world, a perfect correlation existsbetween the network’s airing of a story and the presenceof that network’s cue. Investigating whether a network’sperceived consonance or dissonance influences acquisitionand recall would be impossible because we could not deter-mine if these processes were driven by the content of thenews, the supposed ideological position held by the net-work, or a combination of the two. An experiment permitsthe separation of network attribution from content in orderto investigate the influence of the perceived ideologicalconsonance or dissonance of the media source.
3. Participants and procedure
158 participants were recruited from various intro-ductory and upper-level undergraduate political science
4 It is important to note that any artificiality that remains in thereplications should constitute a conservative bias for hypothesis testing.Although the news stories were produced in a professional news studiowith the help of a professional anchor, the studio lacked the characteristictrappings of the major networks. Also, network affiliations were conveyedvia verbal reference, which was not reinforced with a visual logo. In short,Fox News Channel and CNN broadcasts make it even clearer what net-work the viewer is watching, and the fact that my replications could onlyapproximate a portion of this cueing effect means that any ideologicalsignals transmitted in my tests almost certainly were weaker than thoseconveyed by actual Fox News Channel and CNN broadcasts.
urnal 49 (2012) 9–19
courses at a major state university. When recruited, partic-ipants were simply told that they would be participatingin a news media focus group. Subjects were offered extracredit in the course in which they were enrolled as an incen-tive to participate.5 Volunteers had the ability to opt outof the study by either not showing up for their assignedtime or refusing to complete their participation; however,those who opted out did not receive extra credit. Actualparticipants were randomly assigned to one of the afore-mentioned experimental conditions.6
It is reasonable to ask what implications arise fromusing a student sample for this study. There is a risk thata younger student sample would possess lower levels ofpolitical knowledge and interest and thus not be represen-tative of a larger population (Sears, 1986; see also Hovland,1959). However, a wealth of impressive research sup-ports the use of student samples in experimental research.Roth (1988) found that experimental work utilizing col-lege sophomores has been very impressive. Other scholarshave found that college students provide consistent andreliable data with regard to causal mechanisms (Cooper,McCord, & Socha, 2011; Greenberg, 1987). Wiecko (2010)found that although college students have unique char-acteristics, these characteristics do not affect the validityof data collected. Druckman and Kam (2011) summarizethe argument best with their contention that in most casesstudent samples do not pose an inherent problem to exper-imental research in political science. Furthermore, relianceon a student sample should constitute a more conservativetest of my hypothesis than a random non-student sample.Taking the Sears (1986) argument to its logical conclu-sion, because the members of this sample should be lesscrystallized with regard to their beliefs their perspectivesregarding the ideological bent of networks should not beas strongly ingrained, meaning the members of this sam-ple would be more likely to understate any effects ratherthan overstate them.
In addition, the fact that the demographics of the sam-ple are similar in many important ways to those of arandom, non-student sample should mitigate concerns.43% of the participants self-identified as Republican orRepublican-leaning, 38% self-identified as Democratic orDemocratic-leaning, and 19% self-identified as Indepen-
5 Individual professors had control over the manner and amount ofextra credit that was awarded. As a result, participants were rewarded fortheir participation in different manners, and at varying degrees, depend-ing upon the class in which they were enrolled. However, I have no reasonto believe that the participants were aware of this fact, and I also do notbelieve that this had any influence on the responses they provided in theexperiment.
6 In this instance, randomization was successful. The ideological break-down among those watching CNN was 42% conservative, 39% liberal, and19% moderate. Among those watching FNC, 38% were conservative, 36%liberal, and 24% moderate. The breakdown along gender lines was evenlydistributed, as 53% of those watching FNC were female, while 52% of thosewatching CNN was male. This randomization process also ensured that thesize of each experimental cell was roughly the same, as 81 respondentswatched CNN, and 77 respondents watched FNC.
cience Jo
pwatnfiss
ptteittcait
itItrcirAissbsp
4
rcsdofaaigatBiwrc
f
the dissonance variable and the political ideology variableto complete the model specification.
J. Turner / The Social S
articipant read the newspaper three days a week andatched between three and five hours of news a week. In
ddition, a vast majority of participants used the interneto supplement their search for news. Therefore, althoughot based on an optimal, random non-student sample, thendings of this study should not be plagued by the “collegeophomore” problem typically associated with the use oftudents as research subjects.
Participants viewed one of the broadcasts and then com-leted a survey instrument. The questions contained onhis instrument served several purposes. Most importantly,hey provided a measure of the dependent variable underxamination. The survey also provided useful backgroundnformation regarding the socio-demographic characteris-ics of the participants. The survey was administered afterhe subjects had viewed the broadcast so that respondentsould devote their full attention to the videotapes and tovoid signaling to the respondents what they should specif-cally be looking for in the videotapes in order to answerhe questions.
In addition to providing measures of the variables ofnterest, the survey served two valuable purposes. First,he survey helped mask the actual purpose of the study.f you recall, participants were told that they were par-icipating in a media focus group. By including questionselated to a variety of media-related topics, I was able toonceal the true purpose of the study within a broad surveynstrument. Only after conducting the experiments wereespondents alerted to the more specific goals of the study.lso, as a check to make sure respondents were not keying
n to what the study was actually about, I concluded theurvey by asking them to make a guess as to the project’specific purpose. In this case, none of the guesses put forthy the respondents were correct. Upon completion of theurvey, respondents were debriefed and thanked for theirarticipation.
. Overview of variables and models
The dependent variable utilized in this analysis is aecall variable. This variable measures how many factuallyorrect recall attempts respondents made from the newstories they had previously viewed. In this study respon-ents viewed five news stories and then were asked anpen-ended recall question, asking them to recall five factsrom each of two of the stories they viewed: the Iraq Warnd female suicide bomber stories containing CNN content,nd the Iraq War and mad cow disease stories featur-ng FNC content.7 Five numbered spaces for answers wereiven with respect to each story respondents were askedbout, and each individual response participants gave tohis question was coded as an informational recall effort.ecause I am interested in the respondents’ overall abil-
ty to recall facts presented in both stories, the responses
ere summed. This variable was coded by comparing theecall attempts of the respondents to the transcripts of theontent within the individual stories. If the respondent was
7 The two stories selected for this examination were randomly chosenrom the five stories presented by each network.
urnal 49 (2012) 9–19 13
able to correctly recall information present within the tran-script of the story, the recall attempt was coded as beingcorrect. This variable ranges from 0 to 10, with 0 signify-ing that the respondent could not recall any facts correctlyand 10 signifying that the respondent was able to recall 10facts correctly. Because the dependent variables are counts,I estimated Poisson regression models to investigate myhypotheses.8
With regard to the independent variables of interest,it was first necessary to determine what constitutes aconsonant and a dissonant source. To achieve this, I hadrespondents rate both themselves and the networks theywere watching with regard to their perceived ideology, andused those ratings to determine source consonance and dis-sonance. Respondents were asked to rate themselves ona seven-point ideological scale, coded from 1 to 7, with 1signifying a “strong liberal”, 4 signifying a “moderate”, and7 signifying a “strong conservative.” This was recoded torange from 0 to 1, with 0 signifying a strong liberal and 1signifying a strong conservative.9 Respondents were alsoasked to rate various networks on a 0–10 scale, with 0signifying that a network was perceived to be liberal, 10signifying that a network was perceived to be conserva-tive, and 5 signifying that a network was perceived to beneutral. This was also recoded to range from 0 to 1, with 0signifying a network perceived to be liberal and 1 signify-ing a network perceived to be conservative.10 The networkratings were then subtracted from the ideological measure.The absolute value of this figure was then taken, whichprovided a measure of consonance and dissonance rangingfrom 0 to 1. The closer the value of this variable is to zero,the more consonant the viewer perceives that network tobe with his or her own views. For instance, a respondentwith an ideology of 1 who gave a network rating coded as1 would be watching a fully consonant network. However,a respondent with an ideology of 1 who gave a networkrating of 0 would be watching a fully dissonant network. Avalue approaching one signifies that the viewer perceivesthe network as being ideologically dissonant from his orher political position. This variable is referred to as “disso-nance” in the text.
It was also necessary to control for the original sourceof the story to make sure that one network’s content wasnot more memorable than that of the other network. Thiswas accomplished via a dichotomous variable coded 0 if theoriginal source of the content was FNC and 1 if the originalsource of the content was CNN. Because I am also interestedin whether ideologues acquire and retain information pre-sented by ideologically consonant and dissonant networks,political ideology was interacted with the dissonance vari-able. Finally, the content variable was interacted with both
8 A Pearson goodness of fit p-value of .95 was calculated for this dataset,which indicated that a Poisson regression was appropriate for this exam-ination.
9 Political ideology was recoded by subtracting 1 from the scale, andthen dividing the scale by 6.
10 Dissonance was recoded by dividing the scale by 10.
14 J. Turner / The Social Science Journal 49 (2012) 9–19
Table 1Poisson regression: correct information recall by consonant and dissonantsources.
Correct recallattempts
Correct recallattempts
Constant 1.200 (.107)* 1.613 (.186)*Content −.118 (.070) −.265 (.186)Ideology −.177 (.129) −.393 (.300)Dissonance 1.216 (.146)* .473 (.218)*Dissonance × Ideology – .525 (.377)Ideology × Content – .335 (.272)Dissonance × Content – .226 (.265)N = 158 N = 158LR Chi2 = 77.60 LR Chi2 = 45.82Prob > Chi2 = .00 Prob > Chi2 = .00Psuedo R2 = .102 Psuedo
R2 = .064*p < .05; standard errors in
parentheses*p < .05;standard errors
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fully Consonant Fully Dissonant
Liberal
Moderate
Conserva�ve
Fig. 1. Correct recall attempts by ideology and consonant and dissonant
in parentheses5. Results
Table 1 provides both a basic model and an interac-tive model to assess whether respondents make morecorrect recall attempts when presented with informa-tion from a news media source that they perceive to bedissonant from their ideological position than when pre-sented with information from a media source that theyperceive to be consonant with their ideological position.The mean number of correct responses was 5.5, with astandard deviation of 2.7. The results of the base modeldemonstrate that perceived ideological dissonance has astrong positive influence on the respondent’s ability torecall information correctly. The positive coefficient ofthe dissonance variable is substantively large and sta-tistically significant, which indicates that recall attemptsare significantly more likely to be correct when respon-dents perceive that the political position held by the newsnetwork presenting the content is ideologically dissonantfrom the position they themselves hold. The content vari-able is statistically insignificant, which illustrates that thenews network from which the content originated exertsno significant influence on whether the recall attemptsmade by moderates are factually correct. Ideology fails toreach statistical significance, which demonstrates that therecall attempts made by ideologues are neither more norless likely to be correct than the recall attempts made bymoderates.
The interaction terms in the model in the second columnindicate that the effects of the base variables are only direct,as there are no significant interactive effects between com-binations of political ideology, dissonance, and content.The dissonance variable remains substantively large andstatistically significant, indicating that recall attempts aresignificantly more likely to be correct when respondentsperceive that the political position held by the news net-work presenting the content is ideologically dissonant from
the position they themselves hold. The content and ide-ology variables again fail to reach statistical significance.The interaction between ideology and dissonance is statis-tically insignificant, which demonstrates that the effect ofsources.
the dissonance measure is not influenced by the viewer’spolitical ideology. The interaction between the dissonancevariable and the original source of the news content is alsosubstantively small and statistically insignificant, whichindicates that no conditional relationship exists betweenthese two variables. Finally, the coefficient for the inter-action between political ideology and original source ofthe news content is not statistically significant, whichdemonstrates that the network of origin of the newsbroadcasts does not condition the influence of politicalideology.
Although Poisson regression coefficients are informa-tive with regard to significance and direction, they providelittle in the way of substantive interpretation. Therefore,predicted probabilities were estimated to illustrate thesubstantive effect of the variables in the model.
As Fig. 1 illustrates, a viewer’s perception that a newsnetwork is ideologically dissonant from the political posi-tion held by the viewer exerts a significant influence onthe number of correct recall attempts. Conservative view-ers watching a network they perceive to be fully consonantwith their ideological beliefs would be predicted to make3.2 correct recall attempts. This number increases to 9.7when the ideological bent of the network is perceived tobe fully dissonant. A similar pattern emerges among lib-eral viewers, as they are predicted to formulate 2.6 correctrecall attempts when watching what they perceive to bean ideologically consonant network and 9.2 correct recallattempts when they perceive that network to be ideo-logically dissonant. The effect among moderate viewersis not as large but still significant. Moderates watchingwhat they perceive to be an ideologically consonant net-work are predicted to make 3.1 correct recall attempts,as opposed to 6.1 correct recall attempts among thosewatching what they perceive to be an ideologically dis-sonant network. These significant increases demonstratethat the perceived dissonance of a news source has a
strong positive influence on the number of correct recallattempts.
cience Jo
6
otatsrdstltaac
itchpoabTttnt
tbmbat1pHtaldewtdp
ldapps2paa
J. Turner / The Social S
. Conclusion
The acquisition and retention of political information isne of the most important topics of discussion for practi-ioners of contemporary political science. This study hasttempted to shed light on one important facet of thisopic. Investigating the influence of perceived media con-onance and dissonance on information acquisition andetention has allowed me to demonstrate that respon-ents who are exposed to an ideologically dissonant mediaource are able to correctly recall more factual informationhan those exposed to what they perceive to be an ideo-ogically consonant media source. Simply put, with regardo information acquisition and retention, respondentsppear to be better off watching what they perceive to ben ideologically dissonant network than an ideologicallyonsonant one.
What are the potential implications of this finding? First,t provides support to scholars whose work has challengedhe logic underlying the congeniality hypothesis. Were theongeniality hypothesis to hold in this case, people wouldave been better able to acquire and retain informationresented by consonant media sources. However, the exactpposite occurred, as respondents were actually betterble to acquire and recall information presented to themy what they perceived to be a dissonant media source.his indicates that respondents are likely spending moreime and exerting more energy deliberating the informa-ion presented by what they perceive to be a dissonantews source, which ultimately makes it more memorableo them in the long run.
These results also run contrary to the tenets of balanceheory and cognitive dissonance. Because psychologicalalance is most easily achieved, and cognitive dissonanceost easily avoided, by accepting information provided
y what viewers perceive to be consonant news sourcesnd dismissing information from what viewers perceiveo be dissonant news sources (Festinger, 1957; Heider,946; Newcomb, 1953), this theory would predict thaterceived dissonance would negatively influence recall.owever, the exact opposite occurs in this case. Although
his does not necessarily challenge the perception of theverage American as a “cognitive miser”, it does chal-enge the conventional wisdom that citizens eliminateissonant information in order to achieve cognitive expedi-nce. Viewers may indeed try to employ some mechanismith which to limit dissonance, but the presumption
hat viewers simply dismiss the information presented byissonant sources should not necessarily be the defaultosition.
In addition, these findings bring to light a potential prob-em that could result from news outlet selectivity. I haveemonstrated that, at least in this instance, viewers acquirend retain more information from a news source that theyerceive to be ideologically dissonant from their politicalosition. Although some do indeed turn specifically to dis-onant media sources (Mutz, 2002, 2006; Mutz & Martin,
001), we know that some news outlet selectivity does takelace in the real world. As a result, it appears that those whoctively seek out an ideologically consonant media sourcere not acting in the best interest of informed citizenship.urnal 49 (2012) 9–19 15
This is democratically troubling, as the lack of correct infor-mation that could result from news outlet selectivity canhave consequences for public opinion, public policy, andvote choice.
Also, believing that a source of information is ideolog-ically dissonant appears to activate a cognitive tendencythat inspires individuals to pay more attention (Arendt,1968; Habermas, 1989; Lane, 1962; Lowry & Johnson, 1981;Smith et al., 1981). Research by Turner (2010) suggests thatthis occurs because the respondent wants to be able toformulate counterarguments as to why the position thisnews source is taking is incorrect. The old adage “keep yourfriends close and your enemies closer” may be applicablein this situation. It is possible that ideologues are alreadyfamiliar enough with what their side thinks that they donot pay much attention to information provided by conso-nant news sources. Yet, these same individuals may want tobe informed about the beliefs of the other side, and there-fore they pay close attention to what they perceive to be adissonant news broadcast.
Finally, these respondents may simply be projectingtheir beliefs onto these media sources that they perceiveto be ideologically consonant. Assume an individual holdscertain political beliefs and thinks the way a specific newsnetwork reports stories is consistent with those beliefs. Itis possible that that network can run a story on a specifictopic that actually challenges an individual’s beliefs, butbecause it is run by a news network with which that indi-vidual purportedly agrees, this person assumes that it mustbe consistent with his or her ideology and, when ques-tioned, will assert that the report was consistent with hisor her ideology even when it was not. This would certainlymake the news media’s job as the political informant of theAmerican public a far more difficult task.
Although highly provocative, these results are by nomeans definitive. An important follow-up would be onethat assesses viewers in a real world setting. These respon-dents apparently were put on guard by what they perceivedto be dissonant sources, but this could be attributed to theirparticipation in the experiment. Those who casually watchnetworks they perceive to be ideologically dissonant areperhaps less likely to be on guard, and as a result thisincreased ability to recall information may occur in theshort term but may not last. Also, work that determineswhether people are projecting their ideological views ontothe individual news networks would be a welcome additionto this area of research.
Appendix A.
A.1. Text of original CNN stories
A.1.1. Iraqi fightingTopping our news this evening a U.S. Army scout heli-
copter was brought down by enemy fire Friday, killing onepilot, wounding the other, then a sneak attack by insur-gents masquerading as news reporters, according to the
U.S. military.According to military officials, five enemy personnelpulled up to the crash site driving black and dark blueMercedes. They were wearing black press jackets with
cience Jo
16 J. Turner / The Social Spress clearly written in English. The enemy personnel firedupon U.S. forces with small arms and rocket-propelledgrenades.
No U.S. troops were hit. And later, four suspects weredetained. It was a one-two-punch tactic that was alsoemployed in an earlier attack on a U.S. convoy. A 5000-gallon fuel truck was set ablaze by RPG and small-arms fireafter, first, a roadside bomb stopped the convoy.
Overall, the number of attacks against U.S. troops isdown, from about 50 a day two months ago to about 20a day now. But the enemies of the U.S. continue to refinetheir methods.
One military source was quoted as saying that “We areseeing a small uptick in the capability of the enemy. Theyare getting a little more complex. And for what reason, wedon’t know. But they are getting a little more sophisticatedof late.”
There’s no letup in the U.S. counterinsurgency opera-tions. In the last 24 h, the U.S. conducted more than 1500patrols, launched 28 offensive operations, and captured 88anti-coalition suspects.
A.1.2. Female suicide bomberIt was bloody and shocking, a suicide bombing at the
Erez Crossing between Gaza and Israel carried out by ayoung mother of two. A scene of devastation where thePalestinian suicide bomber struck. The attack on Israelitroops at Gaza’s main crossing into Israel is a grim returnto bloodshed.
According to Brig. Gen. Shamni of the Isreali DefenseForces, “A woman suicide bomber came into the worker’spass in Erez industrial site, and exploded herself, killingfour soldiers, three soldiers and one civilian, and woundingother people.”
Among the injured, Palestinian workers caught in theblast. Thousands pass through the Israeli security postevery day to work in Israeli factories or gain access to Israeliservices that impoverished Gaza simply doesn’t offer.
According to the Israeli Army, the suicide bomber, whowas a woman, had said she needed a permit to get intoIsrael because she needed urgent medical attention. But, asshe was waiting to be processed and searched by a femaleIsraeli soldier, she dropped to her knees, burst into tears,and detonated.
The suicide bomber has been identified as a 22-year-old from Gaza City, married with two children. Hamas saysit’s the first time they’ve used a woman to kill. The AlAqsa Martyrs Brigade, which claims joint responsibility, hasused female bombers before. Her attack, they say, was inresponse to Israeli military incursions and the constructionof what Israel calls a security barrier in the West Bank.
An Israeli governmental spokesman characterized theattack of this morning as particularly shocking, because, asa gesture of goodwill, Israel allows Palestinian workers tocome into Israel. And the Palestinian terrorist organization
took this opportunity in order to kill as many people aspossible.For its part, the Palestinian Authority has called for amutual cease-fire to make room for peace talks. But this
urnal 49 (2012) 9–19
latest bombing and the possible Israeli response may onlydeepen the mistrust.
A.2. Text of original Fox News Channel stories
A.2.1. Iraqi attackIn Iraq today US authorities define well-coordinated
attacks as being carried out by “an enemy that does notrespect any values.” Three targets were hit in Karbala withdevastating results today. Two coalition army bases werehit along with the town council building in Karbala.
Attackers used four suicide car bombs as well asmachine gun and mortar fire. The car bombers were shotbefore they could get all the way into the bases which lim-ited the number of casualties.
At least six soldiers were injured; four from Bulgaria and2 from Thailand, and another two dozen were wounded.We’re told that several American soldiers received minorinjuries.
As in most of these cases the majority of those injuredor killed were Iraqi civilians. More than a half dozen diedand more than 80 were injured.
US officials describe the operations performed by Iraqiand foreign fighters as low-intensity and being carried outby those trying to turn back the hands of time in Iraq.
A.2.2. Mad cow fearsIt took just one cow with mad cow disease for the
department of Agriculture to launch a massive investiga-tion. Investigators are focusing on where that cow camefrom, what it was fed, and what happened to its meat assome of it might have landed on store shelves.
Investigators said today that they have made progressin finding out more about where this cow came from. Offi-cials say they believe it was imported to the U.S. in Augustof 2001 from Alberta, Canada. It came in with 73 othercows.
Now determining exactly where this cow came fromis crucial to this investigation. What they want to knowis what’s called the “birth herd”, which may lead them toother cows who ate the same feed and may also have beenexposed to mad cow.
Inspectors are also still pulling meat from the shelvesthat may have come from the infected cow. Parts mayhave ended up in Oregon, Washington State, California, andNevada.
This first ever mad cow case in the U.S. has agricultureofficials considering new regulations. Most agree changeswill be coming. One option is more testing for mad cow.Last year just over twenty thousand out of three millioncows were tested, which is low compared to WesternEurope who tested ten million and Japan who tested onemillion.
Still, experts say the danger to consumers from the meatis almost nil. Mad cow effects the brain and nervous systempresumably leaving the muscle safe to eat. That, however,is not recommended.
cience Journal 49 (2012) 9–19 17
1
er: _ __________ ___
2
3 a D emocrat, a Republican, or an
5 6 7 Weak Strong
D epublican Republican Republican
4 ative, or m oderate?
5 6 7 Weak Strongnservative Conservative Cons ervative
5 their news. On average, h owamming on te levis ion?
mor e than 20
6 quently?
C SNBC PBS OTHER____ _____
7 ? ____ ______
8 ____ _
9
1
1 ideolo gic al b ias in the n ews. ing ONE o f th e answ ers.
a
J. Turner / The Social S
Survey
. Race/ethnici ty
African-America n CaucasianHisp anic Oth
. Sex: Female Male
. Generally spea king, would you cons ider your self to beindependent ? (cir cle one)
1 2 3 4 Strong Weak emocrat Democrat Democrat Independent R
. And woul d you consider yourself to be l iberal, conserv
1 2 3 4 Strong Weak Liberal Liberal Libe ral Moderate Co
. We are also intereste d in the di fferent ways pe ople get many ho urs a week do you spend watch ing news p rogr
less than 5 6-10 11 -15 16- 20
. Which t elevi sion news n etwor k do you watch most fre
NN Fox News CBS NBC ABC M
. How many days eac h week d o you read the newsp aper
. Which n ewspaper do you mo st of ten rea d? _________
. Do you use any on line news sou rce s? Yes No
0. If so , which on e? ____________ ____
1. We are also inte rest ed i n your evaluatio ns of poss ible Based on your impressions rate each n etwork b y circl
. ABC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 liberal neutral
9 10cons erv ative
cience Journal 49 (2012) 9–19
8 9 10 cons erv ative
8 9 10 cons erv ative
8 9 10cons erv ative
8 9 10 cons erv ative
8 9 10 cons erv ative
ded in e ach of t he stories you ory on :
ttrib ution)
18 J. Turner / The Social S
b. CBS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 liberal neutral
c. CN N
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 liberal neutral
d. Fox News
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 liberal neutral
e. N BC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 liberal neutral
f. MSNBC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 liberal neutral
12. There were many s pecific pieces of in formation inclu viewed. Can you recall five sp ecific facts from the st
a. fighting in Iraq? (same fo r both network attribu tions)
1.2.3.4.5.
b. mad cow disease? (female suicide bomber fo r CNN A
1.2.3.4.5.
References
Arendt, H. (1968). Truth and politics. In H. Arednt (Ed.), Between past andfuture: Eight exercises in political thought. New York: Viking Press.
Axelrod, R. (1973). Schema theory: An information processing modelof perception and cognition. American Political Science Review, 67,1248–1266.
Bennett, S., Fisher, B. & Resnick, D. (1994). Speaking of politics in the United
States: Who talks to whom, why, and why not. In Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Chicago,IL,Carver, C. (2004). Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approachsystem. Emotion, 4, 3–22.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematicinformation processing within and beyond the persuasion context.In J. Uleman, & J. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought. New York:Guilford.
Cook, F. L., Jacobs, L. & Barabas, J. (1999). Deliberative democracy in action:An analysis of the effects of the Americans Discuss Social SecurityDeliberative Forums. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Political Science Association Atlanta, GA.
Cooper, C. A., McCord, D. M. & Socha, A. (2011). Evaluating the collegesophomore problem: The case of personality and politics. Journal ofPsychology, 145, 23–37.
D’Argembeau, A. & Van der Linden, M. (2005). Influence of emotion onmemory for temporal information. Emotion, 5, 503–507.
cience Jo
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
G
G
G
H
H
H
H
H
J
K
K
K
L
L
dents really that different? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1186–1190.Zajonc, R. (1994). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39,
117–123.
J. Turner / The Social S
itto, P. & Lopez, D. (1992). Motivated skepticism: The use of differentialdecision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584.
itto, P., Scepansky, J., Munro, G., Apanovitch, A. M. & Lockhart, L. (1998).Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 53–69.
ruckman S J. & Kam, C. (2011). Students as experimental participants:A defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base’. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green,J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimentalpolitical science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
agly, A. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX:Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
agly, A. & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T.Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychol-ogy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
agly, A., Serena, C., Shelley, C. & Kelly, S.-B. (1999). The impact of attitudeson memory: An affair to remember. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 64–89.
agly, A., Partick, K., Serena, C. & Shelley, C. (2001). Do attitudes effectmemory? Tests of the congeniality hypothesis. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 10, 5–9.
dwards, A. (1941). Political frames of reference as a factor influencingrecognition. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 36, 34–50.
dwards, K. & Smith, E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation ofarguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24.
estinger, L. (1957). Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.
iske, S. & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
reedman, J. & Sears, D. (1965). Selective exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology. NewYork: Academic Press.
rey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York:Academic Press.
astil, J. & Dillard, J. (1999). Increasing political sophistication throughpublic deliberation. Political Communication, 16, 3–23.
reenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting therecord straight. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 157–159.
reenwald, A. & Sakumura, J. (1967). Attitude and selective learning:Where are the phenomena of yesteryear? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 7, 387–397.
abermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.
eider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychol-ogy, 21, 107–112.
ovland, C. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experi-mental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist,14, 8–17.
uckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. & Sprague, J. (2004). Political Disagreement: TheSurvival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
urwitz, J. & Peffley, M. (1997). Public perceptions of race and crime:The role of racial stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science, 41,375–401.
ones, E. & Aneshansel, J. (1956). The learning and utilization of contraval-uant material. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 27–33.
atz, E. (1981). Publicity and pluralistic ignorance: Notes on the spiral ofsilence. In H. Baier, H. Kepplinger, & K. Reuman (Eds.), Public opinionand social change: For Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. Weisbaden: West-deutscher Verlag.
ensinger, E. (2007). Negative emotion enhances memory accuracy:Behavioral and neuroimaging evidence. Current Directions in Psycho-logical Science, 16, 213–218.
lapper, J. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.ane, R. (1962). Political ideology: Why the common man believes what hedoes. New York: Free Press.
au, R. & Redlawsk, D. (2006). How voters decide: Information processingduring an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.
urnal 49 (2012) 9–19 19
Levine, J. & Murphy, G. (1943). The learning and forgetting of controversialmaterial. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 507–517.
Lodge, M. & Taber, C. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political lead-ers, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognitionhypothesis. Political Psychology, 26, 455–482.
Lodge, M., McGraw, K. & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression driven model ofcandidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399–420.
Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter:Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation.American Political Science Review, 89, 309–326.
Lowry, N. & Johnson, D. (1981). Effects of controversy on epistemiccuriosity, achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 115,31–43.
McGraw, K., Lodge, M. & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidateevaluation: The effects of issue order, issue salience and sophistica-tion. Political Behavior, 12, 41–58.
McGuire, W. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In E. Aronson, & G.Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. New York: RandomHouse.
Mutz, D. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Democratic theory in prac-tice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111–126.
Mutz. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus ParticipatoryDemocracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mutz, D. & Martin, P. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines ofpolitical difference: The role of mass media. American Political ScienceReview, 95, 97–114.
Newcomb, Theodore. (1953). An approach to the study of communicativeacts. Psychological Review, 60, 393–404.
Petty, R. & Cacioppo, J. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decreasepersuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive processes. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.
Redlawsk, D. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line modelof voting. Journal of Politics, 63, 29–58.
Redlawsk, D. & Civettini, A. (2009). Voters, emotions, and memory. PoliticalPsychology, 30, 125–151.
Revelle, W. & Loftus, D. (1990). Individual differences and arousal: Impli-cations for the study of mood and memory. Cognition and Emotion, 4,209–237.
Roth, A. (1988). Laboratory experiments in economics: A methodologicaloverview. The Economic Journal, 98, 974–1031.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of anarrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.
Smith D K., Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1981). Can conflict be constructive?Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 73, 651–653.
Stroud, N. (2007). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting theconcept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341–366.
Sweeney, P. & Gruber, K. (1984). Selective exposure: Voter informationpreferences and the Watergate affair. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 46, 1208–1221.
Turner, J. (2007). The messenger overwhelming the message: Ideologicalcues and perceptions of bias in television news. Political Behavior, 29,441–464.
Turner, Joel. (2010). I hear what you’re saying, I just don’t believe you:Counterarguing and dissonant media sources. American Journal ofMedia Psychology, 2, 170–191.
Ulbig, S. & Funk, C. (1999). Conflict avoidance and political participation.Political Behavior, 21, 265–282.
Wiecko, F. M. (2010). Assessing the validity of college samples: Are stu-
Zillmann, D. & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective exposure to communication. Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.