IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v57y2013i3p611-623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew S. Levendusky

Abstract

The recent increase in partisan media has generated interest in whether such outlets polarize viewers. I draw on theories of motivated reasoning to explain why partisan media polarize viewers, why these programs affect some viewers much more strongly than others, and how long these effects endure. Using a series of original experiments, I find strong support for my theoretical expectations, including the argument that these effects can still be detected several days postexposure. My results demonstrate that partisan media polarize the electorate by taking relatively extreme citizens and making them even more extreme. Though only a narrow segment of the public watches partisan media programs, partisan media's effects extend much more broadly throughout the political arena.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew S. Levendusky, 2013. "Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 611-623, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:57:y:2013:i:3:p:611-623
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marijn Keijzer & Michael Mäs & Andreas Flache, 2024. "Polarization on Social Media: Micro-Level Evidence and Macro-Level Implications," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 27(1), pages 1-7.
    2. Su-Min & Alexandru, 2022. "Do Labels Polarise? Theory and Evidence from the Brexit Referendum," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2227, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. Thiemo Fetzer & Carlo Schwarz, 2021. "Tariffs and Politics: Evidence from Trump’s Trade Wars," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(636), pages 1717-1741.
    4. David Autor & David Dorn & Gordon Hanson & Kaveh Majlesi, 2020. "Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(10), pages 3139-3183, October.
    5. Jacob R. Brown & Enrico Cantoni & Ryan D. Enos & Vincent Pons & Emilie Sartre, 2023. "The increase in partisan segregation in the United States," Discussion Papers 2023-09, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    6. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Social media, sentiment and public opinions: Evidence from #Brexit and #USElection," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    7. Koorank Beheshti, Mohammadali & Gopinath, Mahesh & Ashouri, Sama & Zal, Saeed, 2023. "Does polarizing personality matter in influencer marketing? Evidence from Instagram," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    8. Michael Thaler, 2020. "The Fake News Effect: Experimentally Identifying Motivated Reasoning Using Trust in News," Papers 2012.01663, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    9. Ashani Amarasinghe & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Competing for Attention - The Effect of Talk Radio on Elections and Political Polarization in the US," SoDa Laboratories Working Paper Series 2022-02, Monash University, SoDa Laboratories.
    10. Giang T. C. Tran & Luong Vuong Nguyen & Jason J. Jung & Jeonghun Han, 2022. "Understanding Political Polarization Based on User Activity: A Case Study in Korean Political YouTube Channels," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, April.
    11. Alrababah, Ala & Casalis, Marine & Masterson, Daniel & Hangartner, Dominik & Wehrli, & Weinstein, Jeremy, 2023. "Reducing Attrition in Phone-based Panel Surveys: A Web Application to Facilitate Best Practices and Semi-Automate Survey Workflow," OSF Preprints gyz3h, Center for Open Science.
    12. Seong Choul Hong, 2020. "Presumed Effects of “Fake News” on the Global Warming Discussion in a Cross-Cultural Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-11, March.
    13. Adam Lovett, 2023. "The ethics of asymmetric politics," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(1), pages 3-30, February.
    14. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    15. Schroeder, Elizabeth & Stone, Daniel F., 2015. "Fox News and political knowledge," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 52-63.
    16. Salvatore Barbaro, 2021. "A social-choice perspective on authoritarianism and political polarization," Working Papers 2108, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    17. Iandoli, Luca & Primario, Simonetta & Zollo, Giuseppe, 2021. "The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    18. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. María Luisa Humanes & Lidia Valera-Ordaz, 2023. "Partisanship, Ideology, and Selective Exposure: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media Consumption in Spain (2008–2019)," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(2), pages 113-126.
    20. A. Arda Gitmez & Pooya Molavi, 2022. "Informational Autocrats, Diverse Societies," Papers 2203.12698, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    21. Bowen, T. Renee & Galperti, Simone & Dmitriev, Danil, 2021. "Learning from Shared News: When Abundant Information Leads to Belief Polarization," CEPR Discussion Papers 15789, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:57:y:2013:i:3:p:611-623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.