Normative and Informational Influences in Online Political Discussions

How do the statements made by people in online political discussions affect other people\u27s willingness to express their own opinions, or argue for them? And how does group interaction ultimately shape individual opinions? We examine carefully whether and how patterns of group discussion shape (a) individuals\u27 expressive behavior within those discussions and (b) changes in personal opinions. This research proposes that the argumentative climate of group opinion indeed affects postdiscussion opinions, and that a primary mechanism responsible for this effect is an intermediate influence on individual participants\u27 own expressions during the online discussions. We find support for these propositions in data from a series of 60 online group discussions, involving ordinary citizens, about the tax plans offered by rival U.S. presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000

Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions

Although the framing of public opinion has often been conceptualized as a collective and social process, experimental studies of framing have typically examined only individual, psychological responses to alternative message frames. In this research we employ for the first time group conversations as the unit of analysis (following Gamson 1992) in an experimental study of framing effects. Two hundred and thirty-five American citizens in 50 groups (17 homogeneously conservative groups, 15 homogeneously liberal groups, and 18 heterogeneous groups) discussed whether or not gay and lesbian partnerships should be legally recognized. Groups were randomly assigned to one of two framing conditions (a homosexual marriage/special rights frame or a civil union/equal rights frame). Results indicated framing effects that were, in all cases, contingent on the ideological leanings of the group. The marriage frame tended to polarize group discussions along ideological lines. Both liberal and conservative groups appeared to find their opponents\u27 frame more provocative, responding to them with a larger number of statements and expressing greater ambivalence than when reacting to more hospitable frames

Americans, Marketers, and the Internet: 1999-2012

This is a collection of the reports on the Annenberg national surveys that explored Americans\u27 knowledge and opinions about the new digital-marketing world that was becoming part of their lives. So far we’ve released seven reports on the subject, in 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012. The reports raised or deepened a range of provocative topics that have become part of public, policy, and industry discourse. In addition to these reports, I’ve included three journal articles — from I/S, New Media & Society and the Journal of Consumer Affairs — that synthesize some of the findings and place them into policy frameworks. The journals have kindly allowed reproduction for this purpose

What we think others think: A motivated reasoning model of public opinion perception and expression

Normative theory posits that a public—in contrast to a mass of individuals—forms its opinions through communication, which brings about a shared universe of discourse, awareness of multiple viewpoints, self-reflection, and recognition of the legitimacy of opposition in a polity. Modern differentiated societies rely on mass-mediated news to communicate these viewpoints on a scope and scale that reaches the citizenry. Whether individuals pursue information on others\u27 preferences, however, is another matter. While some are motivated to seek as much information possible, others either search for information that supports their own preference, or shun information altogether. This differential pattern of awareness has implications for people\u27s assessment of collective preferences and expression of their own opinion. In this dissertation, I develop a motivated reasoning (MR) model that explicates the relationship between accuracy goals (to reach correct conclusion) and directional goals (to reach preferred conclusion). Next, I outline the MR model predictions concerning perceptions of collective preferences and expression. Three large-scale probability-sample surveys were analyzed: The 2000 American National Election Study (NES) (N = 1800), 1998 NES pilot study (N = 1200), and several surveys of the multiple-wave Electronic Dialogue 2000 project (N = 1100). In addition, experimental data from E-Dialogue 2000 online deliberative discussion-groups was analyzed (N = 300). Results show MR to be a reliable and valid measure correlated with news attentiveness and political ambivalence, and a significant predictor of the ability to generate counter-attitudinal messages, i.e., reasoning a political opponent\u27s point of view. Results also confirm the MR model predictions regarding perceptions of public opinion—some people systematically overestimate support for their own opinion, while others systematically underestimate support for their own opinion. These predictions held for estimates of national-level opinion as well as estimates of the modal opinion in smaller discussion groups. Moreover, results confirm that MR moderates the effect of perceptions on expression, in both survey and deliberative groups. Attempts to persuade others, discussion frequency, and observed expression in groups were all contingent on perceived support and MR style. Several avenues for future research are suggested in light of some limitations of this project. I outline the implications of the MR model for political communication research traditions such as the spiral of silence. The study concludes with a normative reflection on the attainability of a considered public opinion, attentive to diverse preferences of a “generalized other.

Conferencia: Coferencia: Los medios de información y sus lenguages: el hipogrifo violento de nuestros días

- En el marco del curso En llegando a esta pasión II impartido por el maestro José Luis Ibáñez. - Evento coordinado en colaboración con el Grupo de Mujeres de la Asociación Mexicana de Amigos de la Universidad Hebrea de Jerusalem

Replication data for: How Institutions Affect Gender Gaps in Public Opinion Expression

Data and replication material for Nir and McClurg, Forthcoming, Public Opinion Quarterly

Bridging gaps in cross-cutting media exposure: the role of public service broadcasting

Previous studies show that individual political interest is an antecedent of news media exposure, particularly of exposure to differing views. Nevertheless, little is known about this effect from a comparative perspective: How do media institutions affect the relationship between political interest and exposure to cross-cutting viewpoints? One institutional feature that varies between countries is the ownership of broadcast media. This study investigates the extent to which the relative dominance of public service broadcasting alters the relationship between political interest and non-like-minded, or cross-cutting, news media exposure across 27 European Union countries. The analyses employ survey data from 27,079 individuals and media content from 48,983 news stories. The results confirm that the extent to which political interest contributes to cross-cutting exposure is contingent on the strength of public service broadcasting. The stronger the broadcaster, the smaller the gaps between the most and least politically engaged individuals