IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v23y2015i01p59-75_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measure for Measure: An Experimental Test of Online Political Media Exposure

Author

Listed:
  • Guess, Andrew M.

Abstract

Self-reported measures of media exposure are plagued with error and questions about validity. Since they are essential to studying media effects, a substantial literature has explored the shortcomings of these measures, tested proxies, and proposed refinements. But lacking an objective baseline, such investigations can only make relative comparisons. By focusing specifically on recent Internet activity stored by Web browsers, this article's methodology captures individuals' actual consumption of political media. Using experiments embedded within an online survey, I test three different measures of media exposure and compare them to the actual exposure. I find that open-ended survey prompts reduce overreporting and generate an accurate picture of the overall audience for online news. I also show that they predict news recall at least as well as general knowledge. Together, these results demonstrate that some ways of asking questions about media use are better than others. I conclude with a discussion of survey-based exposure measures for online political information and the applicability of this article's direct method of exposure measurement for future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Guess, Andrew M., 2015. "Measure for Measure: An Experimental Test of Online Political Media Exposure," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 59-75, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:23:y:2015:i:01:p:59-75_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700011608/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Erik Peterson & Shanto Iyengar, 2021. "Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 133-147, January.
    3. Sílvia Majó-Vázquez & Ana S. Cardenal & Oleguer Segarra & Pol Colomer de Simón, 2020. "Media Roles in the Online News Domain: Authorities and Emergent Audience Brokers," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 98-111.
    4. Cristian Vaccari & Augusto Valeriani, 2018. "Digital Political Talk and Political Participation: Comparing Established and Third Wave Democracies," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, June.
    5. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    6. Ryan C. Moore & Ross Dahlke & Jeffrey T. Hancock, 2023. "Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2020 US election," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1096-1105, July.
    7. Gregory Eady & Jonathan Nagler & Andy Guess & Jan Zilinsky & Joshua A. Tucker, 2019. "How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.

    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:cup:polals:v:23:y:2015:i:01:p:59-75_01. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.