Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research

Center for Asian Public Opinion Research & Collaboration Initiative (충남대학교 아시아여론조사학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Forced Exposure to Crosscutting Information: What Is the Effect of Broadcast News Shows That Deliver Opposing Opinions?

  • Received : 2023.07.16
  • Accepted : 2023.10.14
  • Published : 2023.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

News shows often deliver crosscutting information to their audiences by inviting commentators from rival political parties. If these news shows foster the formation of informed and balanced views of the audience, mass media could provide countermeasures against political polarization. To test the effect of such news shows, this study conducted an experiment with two variants of a simulated radio talk show. In the partisan scenario, the two guest commentators' affiliations suggested their ideological orientation. In the non-partisan scenario, the commentators had neutral affiliations. We divided participants into two ideology groups, liberals and conservative, and compared each group's evaluation of the commentators in the two scenarios. Two multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were conducted to analyze the effect of the perceived ideology of the commentators on respondents' attitudes toward the commentators' arguments depending on their own ideological inclinations. The analyses results did not support the hypothesis that anticipated partisan attitudes towards the commentators' arguments. It was only the liberal respondents who showed statistically significant different attitudes toward commentators' arguments in each of the two scenarios. The findings suggest that such broadcast shows do not automatically trigger partisan message processing and may help the audience to develop informed and balanced opinions. While the current study failed to find conclusive evidence to support the hypotheses, it also found that the perceived ideology of the information source may trigger partisan attitudes for certain types of issues. Future studies with different experiment designs are needed to investigate the issue further.

Keywords

References

  1. Bail, C. A. (2015). Terrified: How anti-Muslim fringe organizations became mainstream. Princeton University Press.
  2. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of communication 58(4), 707-731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
  3. Bright, J. (2018). Explaining the emergence of political fragmentation on social media: The role of ideology and extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23(1), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmx002
  4. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of personality and social psychology 85(5), 808-822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
  5. Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. M. (2002). The deliberative potential of political discussion. British Journal of Political Science 32(1), 21-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123402000029
  6. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of political economy 65(2), 135-150. https://doi.org/10.1086/257897
  7. Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, communication & society 21(5), 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
  8. Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of personality and social psychology 67(3), 382-394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382
  9. Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
  10. Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly 80(S1), 298-320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
  11. Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New media & society 20(7), 2450-2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170
  12. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in experimental social psychology 19, 41-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60212-9
  13. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of computer-mediated communication 14(2), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
  14. Garrett, R. K., Weeks, B. E., & Neo, R. L. (2016). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: How online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21(5), 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12164
  15. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4), 1799-1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr044
  16. Gibbons, F. X., Eggleston, T. J., & Benthin, A. C. (1997). Cognitive reactions to smoking relapse: The reciprocal relation between dissonance and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(1), 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.184
  17. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004) Comparing media systems: Communication, society and politics. Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. 
  18. Hankook Research. (2021, September 8). Public opinion in public. https://hrcopinion.co.kr/archives/19272
  19. Han, S. (2023). 20dae daeseon-eseo 20dae iha yugwonjadeul-ui hubo jiji yoin: inyeomgwa jendeoleul jungsim-eulo [Factors of support for candidates under the age of 20s in the 20th presidential election of Korea: Focusing on ideology and gender]. Korea and Global Affairs, 7(3), 219-242. https://doi.org/10.22718/kga.2023.7.3.009
  20. Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance. Journal of personality and social psychology 70(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.5
  21. Huckfeldt, R. R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664113
  22. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of communication 59(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
  23. Kiesler, C. A., & Pallak, M. S. (1976). Arousal properties of dissonance manipulations. Psychological Bulletin 83(6), 1014-1025. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.6.1014
  24. Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political communication 16(4), 361-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198541
  25. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counter attitudinal political information. Communication Research 36(3), 426-448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030
  26. Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of personality and social psychology 47(6), 1231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1231
  27. Losch, M. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Cognitive dissonance may enhance sympathetic tonus, but attitudes are changed to reduce negative affect rather than arousal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 26(4), 289-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90040-S
  28. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology 27(1), 415-444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
  29. Min, H., & Yun, S. (2018). Selective exposure and political polarization of public opinion on the presidential impeachment in South Korea: Facebook vs. KakaoTalk. Korea Observer, 49(1), 137-159. DOI:10.29152/KOIKS.2018.49.1.137
  30. Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review 96(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264
  31. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior 32(2), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
  32. Park, K., Han, J., & Lee, J. (2012). Hankooksahoi Inyumgaldeung-ui Guseongkeok Teukseong [The constructive characteristics of ideological conflicts in South Korea]. Korean Party Studies Review 22, 127-151.
  33. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of communication 60(3), 556-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
  35. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment, and beyond. Princeton University Press.
  36. Theiss-Morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 8: 227-249. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104829
  37. Webster, J. G. (2014). The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a digital age. MIT Press.
  38. Wojcieszak, M. (2010). 'Don't talk to me': Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society 12(4), 637-655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342775
  39. Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of personality and social psychology 29(5), 703-709. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036651