Drawing from the Social Identity Model of Collective Action, this study investigates whether Islamophobic political agitation increases perceived discrimination and support for collective action among young Muslims. Using a longitudinal experimental design, we exposed young Muslims aged 18 to 37 years (n = 143) to a variety of anti-Islamic right-wing populist social media messages either once (i.e., single exposure) or at several different time points (i.e., repeated exposure). Our findings show, for the first time, that anti-Islamic political messages not only increased perceived discrimination immediately after exposure, but that this effect was still detectable 2 and 3 weeks after initial exposure. Repeated exposure did not lead to an incremental effect beyond that of one-time exposure. Our findings also showed that perceived discrimination predicted support for non-violent collective action, but not for violent collective action to improve young Muslims' social status both after single and repeated exposure. From a democratic perspective, these findings are encouraging and have important theoretical and methodological implications.

Abstract. Partisan selective exposure, the phenomenon of selectively attending to information that is in line with one’s political views, has received extensive research attention. Researchers have thus far largely neglected, however, to examine the tendency to avoid attitude-discrepant information, that is, selective avoidance. Selective avoidance can be considered a different phenomenon that is not necessarily implied by, nor only occurs simultaneously with, selective exposure. This study investigates these two separate phenomena, for the first time, using eye-tracking methodology. We exposed participants to political ads by liberal and conservative parties placed next to neutral political ads and tracked eye movements unobtrusively. Findings showed that individuals paid more visual attention to political ads that were consistent with their partisan ideology. Additionally, we found that individuals tended to avoid political ads that were inconsistent with their partisan ideology, which provides some evidence for selective avoidance processes. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

By presenting the case study of the Charlie Hebdo attack in news discourse, this chapter combines a semantic analysis of the most frequent frame-activating words through text linguistics tools with frame analysis, developed according to the model proposed by Entman in the news making context. The linguistic perspective adopted in this chapter combines the works by Fillmore and Congruity Theory. As shown in the present work, both linguistics and news framing benefit from such integration.