IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v83y2002i3p671-689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bolstering an Illusory Majority: The Effects of the Media's Portrayal of Death Penalty Support

Author

Listed:
  • David Niven

Abstract

Objective. Researchers have found a distinct difference between expressed supportfor the death penalty (which garners a majority of Americans) and expressed preference for the death penalty over other sentences (which attracts only a minority). Despite the strength of this finding in academic circles, the media tend to cover the death penalty as if it were indisputably favored by a majority of Americans. This article tests the effect of this disparity in coverage. Methods. Using an experimental design, respondents were placed in three groups: Condition 1 read a typical media portrayal depicting widespread support for the death penalty, Condition 2 read a realistic portrayal of the mix of preferences for the death penalty and an alternative sentence, and Condition 3 (the control group) read an article unrelated to the death penalty. Results. Compared to the control group and Condition 1, those who read a more realistic account of public opinion on the death penalty (Condition 2) were less supportive of capital punishment, more likely to think death penalty opponents would talk comfortably about their position, and believed the death penalty would become less prevalent in the future. Conclusions. These findings suggest that the unrealistic media portrayal of public opinion on the death penalty is bolstering a sense of inevitability about the issue.

Suggested Citation

  • David Niven, 2002. "Bolstering an Illusory Majority: The Effects of the Media's Portrayal of Death Penalty Support," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(3), pages 671-689, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:3:p:671-689
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.00108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00108
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.00108?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
    ---><---

    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:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:3:p:671-689. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.