Cover of Changing Minds or Changing Channels?
Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice
by Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson
University of Chicago Press, 2013
Cloth: 978-0-226-04727-0 | Paper: 978-0-226-04730-0 | Electronic: 978-0-226-04744-7
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.001.0001

AVAILABLE FROM

University of Chicago Press (paper, ebook)
Brytewave (CafeScribe-Follett Higher Ed)
Chegg Inc
Kno
ABOUT THIS BOOKAUTHOR BIOGRAPHYREVIEWSTABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THIS BOOK

We live in an age of media saturation, where with a few clicks of the remote—or mouse—we can tune in to programming where the facts fit our ideological predispositions. But what are the political consequences of this vast landscape of media choice? Partisan news has been roundly castigated for reinforcing prior beliefs and contributing to the highly polarized political environment we have today, but there is little evidence to support this claim, and much of what we know about the impact of news media come from studies that were conducted at a time when viewers chose from among six channels rather than scores.

Through a series of innovative experiments, Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson show that such criticism is unfounded. Americans who watch cable news are already polarized, and their exposure to partisan programming of their choice has little influence on their political positions. In fact, the opposite is true: viewers become more polarized when forced to watch programming that opposes their beliefs. A much more troubling consequence of the ever-expanding media environment, the authors show, is that it has allowed people to tune out the news: the four top-rated partisan news programs draw a mere three percent of the total number of people watching television.

Overturning much of the conventional wisdom, Changing Minds or Changing Channels? demonstrate that the strong effects of media exposure found in past research are simply not applicable in today’s more saturated media landscape.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Kevin Arceneaux is associate professor of political science and an affiliate of the Institute for Public Affairs at Temple University. Martin Johnson is professor in the Department of Political Science and directs the Media and Communication Research Lab at the University of California, Riverside.

REVIEWS

“Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson debunk conventional wisdom concerning the divisive effects of cable programming by showing that the availability of consumer choice dampens the effects of exposure to partisan news sources on a variety of beliefs and attitudes. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? will have a significant impact on research in American politics and political communication for years to come.”
— Shanto Iyengar, Stanford University

“Changing Minds or Changing Channels? is among the clearest and most lucidly presented political science texts I have read. It will be of great interest to scholars and  readers outside academia, all of whom will learn something new and valuable from Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson’s compelling argument that the active choices of the audience strongly affect the impact of partisan media.”
— Tim Groeling, University of California, Los Angeles

“Arceneaux and Johnson update the understanding of opinion change through the media for an era of expanded media choice and the growth of extreme partisan content, while jumping headfirst into the debate as to whether the media have a dramatic ‘hypodermic effect’ or minimal effects. . . . Recommended.”
— Choice

“Innovative work. . . . Taken together, [Matthew Levendusky's How Partisan Media Polarize America and Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson's Changing Minds or Changing Channels?] give us a real advance in our understanding of the potentially polarizing effects of partisan cable news.”
— Political Communication

“There has been increasing partisan divergence among the public across a full array of policy issues. This divergence has followed ideological polarization at the elite level since the 1970s, and it is the motivation for Arceneaux and Johnson’s excellent book. . . . The most important and compelling finding is the extent to which it is the attitudes of entertainment seekers that are most influenced by partisan talk show news.”
— Robert Y. Shapiro, Political Science Quarterly

“In an era of partisan television news networks and ideologically-driven hosts, commentators, and analysts, it comes as no surprise that many blame the highly polarized nature of American politics on mainstream media. Yet, in Changing Minds or Changing Channels?, Arceneaux and Johnson challenge this widely held perception. . . . This book presents a fresh perspective that takes into consideration the modern media environment [and] . . . is highly relevant for upper-division undergraduate students, graduate students, and professionals wishing to develop a more nuanced understanding of the complex and ever-changing relationship between media and society.”
— Journal of American Culture

“Understanding the circumstances that limit, and amplify, the effects of partisan news remains an important endeavor. . . . Arceneaux and Johnson illuminate a productive path forward through their innovative experimental designs. . . . Changing Minds or Changing Channels? is a must-read for those interested in experimental design and media effects. The book will inspire scholars to think more critically about media choice and how we study it.”
 
— Public Opinion Quarterly

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.003.0001
[media effects, partisan news, selective exposure, active audience, choice]
This chapter introduces the motivation, puzzles, and argument of the book. It contrasts the early optimism about the potential for cable television to promote political awareness with the vitriolic and partisan news channels that emerged on cable. The current state of partisan news media has led many scholars and political observers to worry that selective exposure to only ideologically likeminded news sources is harmful. In contrast, the authors argue that proliferation of entertainment options and the existence of an active audience blunt media effects created by partisan news shows. Media choice dilutes the audience for partisan news and partitions the potential audience into news-seekers (who are less likely to be influenced by its content) and entertainment-seekers (who are more likely susceptible to the influence of political communication, yet unaffected because they do not watch). (pages 1 - 15)


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.003.0002
[hypodermic needle model, minimal effects, third person effect, cable television, fragmentation]
From the founding generation, Americans have feared massive direct effects of media and have equated political communication with poison. Harold Lasswell, a media theorist in the early 20th century, described media effects with a hypodermic needle model of influence, envisioning these pervasive direct effects. In the middle part of the last century, scholars discovered media more often has minimal effects. Over the course of the 20th century, technology has changed dramatically, giving rise to the fragmentation of cable television today. In contemporary U.S. politics, members of the public continue to fear massive media effects, while envisioning themselves as relatively immune to undue influence, the so-called third person effect. These concerns are mirrored in scholarship on media effects. The chapter also explains how national policy regulating cable television affected a proliferation of viewing opportunities, especially partisan news, as well as the implications of this expanded choice for research on media effects. (pages 16 - 39)


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.003.0003
[selective exposure, media effects, active audience, motivated reasoning, causal inference, randomized experiments, forced exposure design, selective exposure experiment, participant preference experiment]
This chapter explains the theoretical model and research approach. It begins by exploring demographic and political differences among the audiences for partisan and mainstream news, as well as the inattentive public, highlighting potential motivations that underlie audience selectivity. Building on the uses and gratifications framework and psychological models of motivated reasoning, the authors explicate an active audience theory of motivated selective exposure. The chapter elaborates the value of randomized experiments to test the expectations generated by the authors' theory as well as buttress causal inference in the study of political communication. It describes the traditional forced exposure experiment, both its strengths and limitations, and two novel designs: The selective exposure and participant preference experiments. It discusses how these designs facilitate the identification of potential media effects, dilution, and different effects for news- and entertainment-seekers. The chapter concludes with a summary of all the experiments reported in Chapters 4-8. (pages 40 - 69)


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.003.0004
[polarization, partisan news, proattitudinal, counterattitudinal, choice, selective exposure experiment, participant preference experiment]
This chapter investigates the effects of partisan news talk shows on the polarization of political attitudes. This chapter draws on selective exposure experiments that demonstrate partisan news talk shows can polarize audiences when people are forced to watch such programming. Consistent with the authors' active audience theory and contrary to the conventional wisdom, exposure to both pro- and counterattitudinal news programs leads to attitude polarization. However, when people can choose what they watch, the polarizing effect of these shows dissipates. Using the participant preference experiment, the chapter explores two mechanisms that explain why choice attenuates the polarization effect: 1) dilution caused by entertainment-seekers selecting out and 2) the presence of differential effects among news- and entertainment-seekers. Consistent with the book's thesis, it is shown that individuals who seek out partisan news are less likely to be polarized by the content compared to individuals who seek out entertainment. (pages 70 - 90)


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.003.0005
[reinforcement, attitude resistance, partisan news, need for cognition, proattitudinal, counterattitudinal, choice, selective exposure experiment, participant preference experiment]
This chapter considers the possibility that partisan news talk shows reinforce preexisting attitudes by causing viewers to be more resistant to the arguments their opponents make. Drawing on the selective exposure experiment, the chapter demonstrates that forced exposure to partisan news shows can cause people to be less open to persuasion. Consistent with the authors' active audience theory and contrary to the conventional wisdom, forced exposure to proattitudinal news shows do not uniformly lead to resistance to opposing arguments, while forced exposure to counterattitudinal shows does. Need for cognition (i.e., the predisposition to generate counterarguments) is responsible for resistance to opposing arguments. However, the negative effects of these shows dissipate when individuals are given choice over what to watch. As in Chapter 4, the participant preference experiment shows that news-seekers are affected less by partisan news talks shows than entertainment-seekers. (pages 91 - 105)


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.003.0006
[agenda setting, priming, framing, partisan news, polarization, proattitudinal, counterattitudinal, choice, selective exposure experiment, participant preference experiment]
Cable news shows may help set the public agenda via the salience of issues and how they are framed. Liberal and conservative partisan news shows tend to focus on different aspects of the same issue and often different issues altogether. This raises the possibility that those who primarily watch cable news shows are removing themselves from the common conversation that the major broadcast news shows provide, instead choosing to view proattitudinal news rather than counterattitudinal news sources. Many observers are concerned that these different issue priorities affect mass polarization. This chapter explores these propositions using selective exposure and participant preference experiments. The authors demonstrate that choice attenuates the agenda setting effects of partisan news media. There is also evidence that partisan news shows can have a stronger agenda setting effect on entertainment-seekers and can have the same effect on both entertainment- and news-seekers. Notably, though, even though partisan news media can shape the agenda for news-seekers, it is less likely to have success in framing those issues. (pages 106 - 124)


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.003.0007
[televised incivility, videomalaise, conflict aversion, hostile media effect, oppositional media hostility, proattitudinal, counterattitudinal, choice, selective exposure experiment, participant preference experiment]
This chapter investigates the claim that cable news talk shows cause people to be both less trusting of the political system and the media, which some have called the new videomalaise. While the partisan news media can decrease trust in the political system and increase oppositional media hostility, a phenomenon that extends beyond the well-documented hostile media effect, evidence from selective exposure and participant preference experiments reported here indicates a media environment with choice attenuates these effects. Moreover, the negative effects of partisan news media found by other researchers appear to be largely driven by research participants who may be potential viewers of these cable news shows featuring televised incivility but who more typically avoid watching them, given their conflict aversion and tendency to choose entertainment rather than political news programs. (pages 125 - 146)


DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226047447.003.0008
[meta-analysis, polarization, choice, selective exposure experiment, two-step flow, hard news, media effects]
This chapter summarizes the book's conclusions with the help of a meta-analysis, which statistically aggregates the findings of the experimental studies presented throughout the book. This is particularly instructive in part because it shows that viewer choice blunts, rather than erases, media effects associated with partisan news. The authors also consider an array of potential explanations for mass polarization and perceived mass polarization in the U.S. They present a final selective exposure experimental study that shows the availability of partisan news choices accentuates concerns about extremism and the voice partisans have in U.S. politics: The availability of partisan news in a broad choice environment is not the driver of polarization that many think it is, but that these options available alongside each other heighten concerns that partisan news divides Americans, increasing the perception of polarization. Taking stock, the chapter identifies fruitful paths forward in media effects research, particularly the need to study the possible indirect effects of the partisan news media, such as its contribution to a two-step flow of information and potential influence on hard news. (pages 147 - 168)

Appendices

Notes

References

Index

Book published by University of Chicago Press, 2013. Page maintained by BiblioVault.