No abstract

Research often collapses programming like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Late Show, and The Tonight Show into one category of programming. However, recent research suggests that both the content and effects of viewing these programs differ. This study separates satire or parody and traditional late-night comedy to examine effects of viewing on political participation. Results suggest that viewing satire or parody has positive and significant effects on political participation through the mediator of political efficacy, as does viewing traditional TV news. However, this relationship is not borne out for viewers of traditional late-night comedy. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

This experiment explores the role of information format (print vs. video) and tone (humorous–nonhumorous) in shaping message interest and belief correction in the context of political fact-checking ( N = 525). To understand the mechanisms by which audience misperceptions may be reduced, this experiment tests the belief-correcting effectiveness of a humorous fact-checking video produced by Flackcheck.org , a long-form FactCheck.org print article on the same topic, a nonhumorous video debunking the same set of claims, an unrelated humorous video, and a non-stimulus control group. Mediating psychological mechanisms (message interest, counterargumentation, message discounting) and message perceptions (message confusion) are explored. Results suggest video (humorous or nonhumorous) is an effective way to reduce audience misperceptions by increasing message attention and reducing confusion.

This multi-experiment study builds upon extant political entertainment theory, testing whether satire type (horatian versus juvenalian) cues varying processing mechanisms (message discounting versus resource allocation), and if consequential differences to argument scrutiny levels or message persuasiveness result. Using novel stimuli (e.g., animated cartoons, study one) and real-world late-night political satire (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, study two), results suggest that satire type was a key antecedent in political humor message processing. Additionally, the varying mechanisms had differential effects on political argument scrutiny levels and message persuasiveness.

No abstract