A New Era of Minimal Effects? A Response to Bennett and Iyengar

Abstract

call for debate about the future of political communication effects research. We outline 4 key criticisms. First, Bennett and Iyengar are too quick to dismiss the importance of attitude reinforcement, long recognized as an important type of political media influence. Second, the authors take too narrow a view of the sources of political information, remaining fixated on news. Third, they offer an incomplete portrayal of selective exposure, exaggerating the extent to which individuals avoid attitudediscrepant information. Finally, they lean toward determinism when describing the role technologies play in shaping our political environment. In addition, we challenge Bennett and Iyengar's assertion that only brand new theory can serve to help researchers understand today's political communication landscape. We argue that existing tools, notably the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), retain much utility for examining political media effects. Contrary to Bennett and Iyengar's claims, the ELM suggests that the contemporary political information environment does not necessarily lead to minimal effects.

Challenging Selective Exposure

“…Nevertheless, pessimists' positions that fear an extensive fragmentation of the audience along lines of thematic interests and political viewpoints might exaggerate matters. A number of studies suggest more complex relationships (Holbert, Garrett, and Gleason 2010): While there is a long tradition of research that confirms that people seem to select information according to their political predispositions (Frey 1986;Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 1944;Sears and Freedman 1967;Zillmann and Bryant 1985), newer studies have nuanced this picture and provided evidence that conflicting sources are not eschewed completely (Garrett, Carnahan, and Lynch 2011;Garrett 2009aGarrett , 2009bJohnson, Zhang, and Bichard 2010;Kobayashi and Ikeda 2009;Stroud 2008;Webster 2011).…”

Tweeting on Catalonia’s Independence: The Dynamics of Political Discussion and Group Polarisation

“…Users tend to follow other users who are following them -a norm of reciprocity is part of the netiquette rules on Twitter; especially if there is some affinity. This reinforces the appearance of homophily (Lazarsfeld et al, 1954;Huberman et al, 2008).…”

“…Admittedly, actual or potential exposure to counterargument forces individuals to revise their own ideas, to consider the position of the other person, and to sharpen their arguments in order to build more persuasive and convincing claims (Holbert et al, 2010).…”

Grenzen der Selektivität: Kann der Selective-exposure-Ansatz komplementäre und komplexe Nutzungsmuster erklären?

“…Relativ bald zeigte sich jedoch, dass auch in der heutigen Medienlandschaft die selektive Zuwendung zu kongruenten Medien nicht notwendigerweise die aktive Vermeidung inkongruenter Inhalte beinhaltet (Garrett, Carnahan, & Lynch, 2011;Garrett, 2009aGarrett, , 2009bKobayashi & Ikeda, 2009;Stroud, 2008 (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008;Iyengar & Hahn, 2009), wird von anderen die Stärke des Einflusses von selective exposure im Online-Zeitalter bedeutend geringer eingeschätzt (Holbert, Garrett, & Gleason, 2010 (Trilling & Schönbach, 2013a, 2013b Darüber hinaus finden sich neben den üblichen Kontrollvariablen unter anderem auch die politische Einstellung auf einer Links-rechts-Skala (min = 1; max = 11; MW AT = 5,60; SD AT = 2,15; MW NL = 5,88; SD NL = 2,27) sowie entertainment preference, operationalisiert als Frage, ob der Befragte Fernsehen/Zeitung/Internet eher nutzt, um sich zu informieren oder zu unterhalten (die drei Fragen wurden zu einer Skala zusammengefasst, min = 1; max = 7; MW AT = 3,32; SD AT = 1,20; MW NL = 3,37; SD NL = 1,15) 1 .…”