Political Communication最新文献

{"title":"Editor’s Note","authors":"Regina G. Lawrence","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2286570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2286570","url":null,"abstract":"Published in Political Communication (Ahead of Print, 2023)","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"50 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138438819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Thinking for Themselves: Bootstraps Discourse and the Imagined Epistemology of Reactionary YouTube Audiences","authors":"Cindy Ma","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2283703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2283703","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, popular interest in disinformation has coalesced around a series of high-profile events, starting with the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump in 2016. While Faceboo...","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"50 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138438818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Do Online Ads Sway Voters? Understanding the Persuasiveness of Online Political Ads","authors":"Xiaotong Chu, Rens Vliegenthart, Lukas Otto, Sophie Lecheler, Claes de Vreese, Sanne Kruikemeier","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2276104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2276104","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the effect of online political ads on party preference, and whether this effect is more pronounced for newer political parties and voters who are less politically knowledgeable and literate regarding online privacy. A mixed-method approach, combining Facebook browser tracking data and a four-wave panel survey, was adopted during the 2021 Dutch General Election campaign. The results showed that the number of political ads received from a specific party has a positive effect on both the propensity and choice to vote for that party. In addition, people with less political knowledge and online privacy literacy are more likely to be persuaded by online political ads. However, at the party level, there is no evidence indicating that the effect of political ads on party preference is stronger for new parties than for established parties. Overall, this study shows that voters can be persuaded via the frequency of exposure to online political ads, but the extent to which they are affected can vary.","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"118 45","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135137048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Threats as Political Communication","authors":"Nathan P. Kalmoe, Lilliana Mason","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2270539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2270539","url":null,"abstract":"Published in Political Communication (Ahead of Print, 2023)","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"51 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71436105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Negotiating News: How Cross-Cutting Romantic Partners Select, Consume, and Discuss News Together","authors":"Emily Van Duyn","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2270445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2270445","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTAs political partisanship intensifies, political similarity in romantic partnerships has become increasingly common. Still, there exist many for whom their romantic partnership is “cross-cutting,” or one in which partners hold dissimilar political beliefs, and for whom the selection, consumption, and discussion of news may be especially challenging. Drawing from literature on news exposure, co-viewing, and political talk, I consider the influence of cross-cutting romantic partnerships on if and how romantic partners select, consume, and discuss news with each other. Through in-depth interviews with individuals in cross-cutting romantic partnerships (N = 67), I find that cross-cutting couples experience two phenomena when navigating news: a) negotiated exposure, in which partners influence the news one another selects and consumes, and b) two-step conflict, in which news content, source, and volume spurred conflict, not only discussion, between partners. I consider the implications of these phenomena for the study of political polarization, news use, and political discussion, and advocate for these areas of research to consider relational contexts in their approach.KEYWORDS: Cross-cuttingpolitical communicationnewspolarizationin-depth interviews AcknowledgmentsThis work received support from the Institute for Humane Studies under grant no. IHS016699.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Supplementary materialSupplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2270445Notes1. The study received IRB approval (# 54708) on February 14, 2020.Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University [IHS016699].Notes on contributorsEmily Van DuynEmily Van Duyn (PhD, The University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research explores the contexts in which people receive information and talk (or do not talk) about politics.","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135994987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Talking Past Each Other on Twitter: Thematic, Event, and Temporal Divergences in Polarized Partisan Expression on Immigration","authors":"Xiaoya Jiang, Yini Zhang, Jisoo Kim, Jon Pevehouse, Dhavan Shah","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2263400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2263400","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTExtending literature on political polarization and political expression, we study patterns of polarized expression by vocal partisans from opposing camps on social media. Specifically, we argue that polarized partisan expression can be characterized by three divergences: 1) different thematic emphases on the same issue; 2) response to different real-world events on the same issue; and 3) a temporal disconnect at the aggregate level. Highlighting how online expression by different partisan groups is animated by discrete concerns and events and exhibits different temporality, the three divergences in polarized partisan expression not only reflect and explain existing polarization concepts but also speak to the epistemological chasm between partisan groups. Our empirical analysis is based on Twitter discussion about the issue of immigration in the U.S. and applies topic modeling and time series analysis. Results demonstrate that liberal and conservative tweets exhibit different thematic emphases, are often spurred by different event features, and remain largely temporally independent, though both Trump’s tweets and emotionally evocative events can draw simultaneous reaction from both sides. These findings suggest that opposing partisan groups not only hold different views on the same issue, but also weave different events and facts about the issue into partisan expression in response to different exogenous factors. In short, they “talk past each other.” These polarized partisan expression patterns indicate a splintered public sphere, a concerning quality for deliberative democracy.KEYWORDS: Polarizationpartisanshippartisan expressionsocial mediaimmigration Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data Availability StatementData is available upon request.Open ScholarshipThis article has earned the Center for Open Science badge for Open Materials. The materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/3wqe4/Supplementary materialSupplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2263400.Notes1. We use conservatives/liberals from here on because 1) partisan-ideological sorting in the U.S. has resulted in the alignment of liberals with the Democratic Party and conservatives with the Republican Party; and 2) conservatives/liberals are more generalizable to the global context.2. According to agenda-setting research, an issue is “whatever is in contention among a relevant public” (Lang & Lang, 1991, p.281), a definition that we adopt in this study. As discussed in the literature review, a “thematic emphasis” refers to an interpretive lens and the resulting semantic coherence in expression. As such, issues are what the first-level agenda-setting research is mainly concerned about, while thematic emphases are largely equivalent to frames or attributes in the second-level agenda-setting research (Ceron, Curini & Iacus, 2016).3. https://ballotp","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"201 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135738922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Attacks and Issue Competition: Do Parties Attack Based on Issue Salience or Issue Ownership?","authors":"Željko Poljak, Henrik Bech Seeberg","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2264224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2264224","url":null,"abstract":"Various studies have been devoted to explaining the conditions under which parties engage in attack behavior. However, the existing literature has overlooked the issues on which parties attack. Thi...","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"10 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50164617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scholarly Solidarity: Building an Inclusive Field for Junior and Minority Researchers","authors":"Josephine Lukito","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2261876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2261876","url":null,"abstract":"The goal of this reflective essay is to highlight challenges that junior and minority political communication researchers face and to advocate for scholarly solidarity practices, defined as actions...","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"10 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50164619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fake News for All: How Citizens Discern Disinformation in Autocracies","authors":"Anton Shirikov","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2257618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2257618","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTResearch on autocracies often posits that propaganda can manipulate citizens’ beliefs, but existing work does not systematically investigate how well individuals recognize misinformation in authoritarian environments and whether susceptibility to propaganda is related to vulnerability to false news. I present the results of four surveys in Russia, in which more than 60,000 participants evaluated 74 true and false news headlines. I find that Russians’ capacity to discern falsehoods is comparable to discernment found in other political contexts, and they could often detect false news stories. However, consumers of state media gave less accurate evaluations than consumers of independent media, and government supporters were substantially more susceptible to pro-regime misinformation than opposition-minded citizens. Supporters also strongly rejected true messages inconsistent with their political dispositions. These results help understand why in environments dominated by propaganda individuals can be quite vulnerable to information manipulation. At the same time, regime critics in my study often fell for propaganda-inconsistent falsehoods. These results highlight the broader challenge of fighting misinformation and propaganda in a situation when many citizens exhibit political biases.KEYWORDS: MisinformationpropagandaautocracyRussia AcknowledgementI am grateful to Scott Gehlbach, Yoshiko Herrera, Rikhil Bhavnani, Jessica Weeks, Adeline Lo, Quintin Beazer, Holger Kern, Bryn Rosenfeld, Andrew Little, Jon Green, Noah Buckley, Georgiy Syunyaev, Mingcong Pan, to the participants at the ASEEES annual meeting (2020) and various colloquia and conferences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data Availability StatementThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, A.S., upon reasonable request.Supplementary MaterialSupplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2257618Notes1. I use the terms “state media’’ and “propaganda outlets’’ interchangeably.2. https://www.facebook.com/help/1881188083573793. This study uses a dichotomized (true/false) measure of perceived news veracity because its premise, discussed below, implied that there would be true and false messages, and the stories were selected in such a way that their central claim was clearly true or false. This measurement approach was employed in several recent studies of vulnerability to misinformation (see e.g., Bago et al., Citation2020; Pennycook et al., Citation2021), and it makes comparisons with other work straightforward. Moreover, as Pennycook and Rand (Citation2019a) show, dichotomized measures produce results similar to more fine-grained scales.4. See, e.g., a recurring BuzzFeed quiz on fake news: https://ww","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135206079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Unequal Tweets: Black Disadvantage is (Re)tweeted More but Discussed Less Than White Privilege","authors":"Annette Malapally, Andreas Blombach, Philipp Heinrich, Julia Schnepf, Susanne Bruckmüller","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2257624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2257624","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Disadvantage and privilege work together to uphold systems of inequality. Nevertheless, racial inequality is often described as Black disadvantage, while White privilege remains less visible. This one-sided framing in public discourse may result in equally one-sided understandings of and policies aimed at reducing inequality. In the present research, we examined the use of and the reactions to Black disadvantage and White privilege frames in tweets. Twitter stands out as a public sphere inspiring both online and offline political discussions and protests around racial inequality (e.g. #BlackLivesMatter). We analyzed the framing of tweets using a combination of a rule-based and a machine-learning approach, resulting in two corpora of 11,292 (Study 1) and 31,984 tweets (Study 2, a direct replication of Study 1) using comparative frames of racial inequality. Users overall more often framed inequality as Black disadvantage than as White privilege. Moreover, tweets with a disadvantage frame were more often retweeted, but less often quoted and replied to than tweets with a privilege frame. These results show that racial inequality is often one-sidedly framed in real online conversations and that this pattern may be reinforced by other users because they preferably pass on disadvantage frames. However, focusing on White privilege may provoke more discussion about racial inequality. Although effect sizes were small, these effects can impact content and perspectives in mainstream media, public opinion, and political agendas by guiding attention to certain aspects of racial inequality, but not others.","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135826574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}