/
Erinn   Lauterbach Feb. 28, 2014 Erinn   Lauterbach Feb. 28, 2014

Erinn Lauterbach Feb. 28, 2014 - PowerPoint Presentation

trish-goza
trish-goza . @trish-goza
Follow
361 views
Uploaded On 2018-03-16

Erinn Lauterbach Feb. 28, 2014 - PPT Presentation

Chapter 5 Hearing the Other Side and Standing Firm Arceneaux and Johnson Main point What role could partisan news play in hardening the attitudes of viewers against opposing arguments Example ID: 653561

counterattitudinal news shows arguments news counterattitudinal arguments shows group partisan seekers entertainment agenda participants proattitudinal problem cognition people elm

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Erinn Lauterbach Feb. 28, 2014" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Erinn LauterbachFeb. 28, 2014

Chapter 5: Hearing the Other Side and Standing Firm

Arceneaux

and JohnsonSlide2

Main point: What role could partisan news play in hardening the attitudes of viewers against opposing arguments? Example:

Birthers

in 2008

These shows both bolster pre-existing attitudes and help hone viewer defenses to arguments from the other side.

P

artisan show hosts (O’Reilly &

Olbermann

)

Promote their own views

Tear down others with whom they disagree

These kinds of communications can wall off like-minded viewers from hearing the other side. Slide3

One theory of political communication is that if people are exposed to opposing arguments (both proattitudinal and

counterattitudinal

) they will have more moderate views and reasonable opinions.

Authors use a hypothetical counterfactual

Questions: will hearing the other side moderate views (increase openness)

or

will exposure to countervailing views harden partisans against those arguments?Slide4

Again the A & J are borrowing from the psychology literatureExposure to proattitudinal

information increases peoples political efficacy and bolsters their initial opinions

Primes group identity

If

c

ounterattitudinal

information signals an out-group threat it would motivate people to defend their groups position

This desire for in-group cohesion can mediate even reasonable counter arguments

Examples? Climate change? Slide5

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty and Cacioppo

)

Helps the authors incorporate how the audience might differ in their receptivity to pro and

counterattitudinal

arguments.

“some individuals have a strong need to intellectually process, or elaborate, arguments while others are less inclined to do so”

Need for cognition

Individuals high in need for cognition are better at and enjoy dissecting arguments as well as generating their own counter arguments.Slide6

People who have weak attitudes and high need for cognition

tend to moderate their opinions when exposed to both side.

People with

strong attitudes

and

high need for cognition

tend to

counterargue

when exposed to

counterattitudes

.

Rehearse counterarguments

Distrust the source

Resist persuasion Slide7

ExperimentsSelective Exposure Experiments (SEEs) 09 & 11

Randomly assigned to 3 groups:

Proattitudinal

show

Counterattitudinal

show

Entertainment show (later to became channel changing group)

Focus on tax policy (Warren Buffet)

Asked to watch the news selection and rate the

counterattitudinal

persuasiveness on a 9 point scale

ELM measure was given in a pre-testSlide8

ResultsIf

a respondent claims the

counterattitudinal

argument was not persuasive (weak) then there is evidence that watching partisan news

hardens

people’s opinions making them

less open

to opposing viewpoints.

This is what they found. When compared to the control group, those in the

counterattitudinal

group rated the given argument as weak. Slide9

ELM?Low need for cognition participants:

In both pro and

counterattitudinal

groups did not evaluate arguments differently from the control group.

High need for cognition participants:

The partisan arguments caused participants to be more resistant to opposing arguments. Slide10

Entertainment Folks?News seekers have a desire to maintain their opinions and should be capable of resisting

counterattitudinal

arguments.

Entertainment seekers however may benefit from exposure to both pro and

counterattitudinal

news.

Have less defense against counter arguments.

ELM?

May lack the desire to connect arguments made in the news to any pre-existing opinions. Slide11

ExperimentFall 2011 Participant Preference Experiment (PPE)

Shorter version of the fall 2011 SEE

Before being randomly assigned to a group, participants were asked what they preferred to watch.

ELM was given in the post-test Slide12

ResultsPartisan news shows have a larger affect on entertainment seekers

Specifically,

proattitudinal

group entertainment seekers substantially increase their resistance to counter arguments.

ELM:

Both low and high need for cognition entertainment seekers are more likely to resist opposing arguments after watching

proattitudinal

news.

It does little to harden attitudes further thoughSlide13

Takeaway: Partisan news has the potential to have massive effects, but these are likely unrealized because the most susceptible tune out opinionated cable news programs. Slide14

Chapter 6: The Salience and Framing of IssuesSlide15

Agenda Setting: By reporting on some issues at the expense of others, news media influences what issues the mass public sees as most important

Salience

Primes:

News media can construct shared perceptions about a collective experience and thus influence peoples political judgments

Helps people decide what information to rely on when constructing attitudes

Frames:

How a problem is defined can affect what people think about an issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfb9f7yFYgwSlide16

Question: Does the rise of partisan media alter agenda setting? Possible theories:Partisan media may focus on different things.

Stroud (2001) looked at the 2004 Presidential election. He found that the agenda on each side was similar, but the way they framed the issues was different.

Implications: audiences of one news outlet will have a different conversation from that of the audience of other news outlets.

Viewer watching a

counterattitudinal

show may accept the agenda, but not the partisan definition given with the issue.

A & J find that both pro- and

counterattitudinal

shows can shape perceptions of issue salience. Slide17

O’Reilly devoted much of his time to talking about the budget and economy

Olbermann

did not discuss the economy at all

Olbermann

viewers were 14% less likely than O’Reilly to mention the economy as the most important problem.

Olbermann

successfully shifted the focus of his viewers away from the economy. Slide18

ExperimentWinter 2011 SEE

Focus on the ACA/

Obamacare

Posttest includes and overall evaluation of the president

The liberal and conservative shows presented the ACA in completely different waysSlide19

FindingsControl Group

There was basically no relationship between health care and their performance evaluation of the president

Counterattitudinal

Group

Participants were more likely to bring health-care specific and evaluations of Obama in line with each other

Partisan (especially

counterattitudinal

) news appear to prime the issues relevant to their evaluations of the president. However,

counterattitudinal

shows magnify partisanship in issue-specific presidential evaluations. Slide20

Agenda Setting:Most likely to happen among entertainment seeking groups assigned to proattitudinal

shows.

News seekers in the

counterattitudinal

group appear to resist agenda setting (they were 10 percentage points less likely to mention the environment as a problem)

Issue Framing

Partisan media not only wants to set the agenda but also to affect how viewers define the issue.

Priming

Because

counterattitudinal

shows attack people’s core predispositions and partisan identities, a defensive priming effect may be more

robus

than simple agenda-setting effects are. Slide21

ExperimentFall 2011 PPE

Participants were presented with six problem definitions of federal tax policy and asked to rank how important each was.

Definitions taken from the news shows, 3 liberal & 3 conservative

Participants physically drag each definition to the spot where they thought it belonged. Slide22

Findings:News Seekers

Were highly likely to choose attitude-consistent problem definitions without the aid of partisan news

Definitions were unaffected by pro or

counterattitudinal

shows.

Entertainment Seekers

Proattitudinal

shows appeared to facilitate an attitude-consistent problem definition (only

slighly

)

Counterattitudinal

shows lowered the probability that they chose an attitude-consistent definition as their first choice.

These shows may successfully alter problem

defintions