Expanding the Methodological Toolbox: Factorial Surveys in Journalism Research

References

• Adams, J. B. 1964. “A Qualitative Analysis of Domestic and Foreign News on the AP TA Wire.” Gazette 10 (4): 285–294.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, C. S., and H. J. Becker. 1978. “The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (1): 93–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atzmüller, C., and P. Steiner. 2010. “Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research.” Methodology 6 (3): 128–138. doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auspurg, K., and T. Hinz. 2015a. Factorial Survey Experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Auspurg, K., and T. Hinz. 2015b. “Multifactorial Experiments in Surveys: Conjoint Analysis, Choice Experiments, and Factorial Surveys.” In Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften, edited by M. Keuschnigg and T. Wolbring, 291–315. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar
• Auspurg, K., T. Hinz, and S. Liebig. 2009. “Komplexität von Vignetten, Lerneffekte und Plausibilität im Faktoriellen Survey [Complexity of Vignettes, Learning and Plausibility].” Methoden, Daten, Analysen 3 (1): 59–96.
   Google Scholar
• Bickel, R. 2007. Multilevel Analysis for Applied Research: It’s Just Regression!. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boumans, J. W., and D. Trilling. 2016. “Taking Stock of the Toolkit.” Digital Journalism 4 (1): 8–23. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1096598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cushion, S. 2008. “Truly International? A Content Analysis of Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism and Journalism Studies.” Journalism Practice 2 (2): 280–293.
   Google Scholar
• Dupagne, M., and B. Garrison. 2006. “The Meaning and Influence of Convergence.” Journalism Studies 7 (2): 237–255. doi:10.1080/14616700500533569.
   Google Scholar
• Enders, C. K., and D. Tofighi. 2007. “Centering Predictor Variables in Cross-Sectional Multilevel Models: A New Look at an Old Issue.” Psychological Methods 12 (2): 121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelmann, I. 2012. Alltagsrationalität im Journalismus: akteurs- und organisationsbezogene Einflussfaktoren der Nachrichtenauswahl [Day-to-day Rationality in Journalism: Person- and Organization-Related Factors Influencing the Selection of News]. Konstanz: UVK.
   Google Scholar
• Engelmann, I., and M. Wendelin. 2015. “Relevanzzuschreibung und Nachrichtenauswahl des Publikums im Internet [Audience’s Relevance Attribution and News Selection in the Internet].” Publizistik 60 (2): 165–185.
   Google Scholar
• Esser, F., J. Strömbäck, and C. de Vreese. 2012. “Reviewing key Concepts in Research on Political News Journalism: Conceptualizations, Operationalizations, and Propositions for Future Research.” Journalism 13 (2): 139–143. doi:10.1177/1464884911427795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, F. J. 2013. Survey Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Glogger, I., and L. P. Otto. 2019. “Journalistic Views on Hard and Soft News: Cross-Validating a Popular Concept in a Factorial Survey.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance Online Publication, doi:10.1177/1077699018815890.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves, L., B. Nyhan, and J. Reifler. 2016. “Understanding Innovations in Journalistic Practice: A Field Experiment Examining Motivations for Fact-Checking.” Journal of Communication 66 (1): 102–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, P. E., A. M. Krieger, and Y. Wind. 2001. “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects.” Interfaces 31: 56–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunst, R. F., and R. L. Mason. 2009. “Fractional Factorial Design.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 1 (2): 234–244.
   Google Scholar
• Hanasono, L. 2017. “External Validity.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, edited by M. Allen, 480–483. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hanitzsch, T. 2009. “Comparative Journalism Studies.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, edited by K. Wahl-Jorgensen and T. Hanitzsch, 413–427. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hanitzsch, T., and K. Wahl-Jorgensen. 2009. “Introduction: On why and how we Should do Journalism Studies.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, edited by K. Wahl-Jorgensen and T. Hanitzsch, 3–16. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hanusch, F., and T. Hanitzsch. 2017. “Comparing Journalistic Cultures Across Nations.” Journalism Studies 18 (5): 525–535. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1280229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanusch, F., and T. P. Vos. 2019. “Charting the Development of a Field: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies of Journalism.” International Communication Gazette, 1748048518822606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harcup, T., and D. O’Neill. 2001. “What is News? Galtung and Ruge Revisited.” Journalism Studies 2 (2): 261–280.
   Google Scholar
• Haven, T. L., and L. van Grootel. 2019. “Preregistering Qualitative Research.” Accountability in Research, 1–16. doi:10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfer, L. 2016. “Media Effects on Politicians: An Individual-Level Political Agenda-Setting Experiment.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 21 (2): 233–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfer, L., and P. van Aelst. 2015. “What Makes Party Messages Fit for Reporting?: An Experimental Study of Journalistic News Selection.” Political Communication 33 (1): 59–77. doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.969464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henn, P., M. Dohle, and G. Vowe. 2013. “Politische Kommunikation“: Kern und Rand des Begriffsverständnisses in der Fachgemeinschaft [“Political Communication”. Core and Periphery of the Community’s Understanding of the Concept].” Publizistik 58 (4): 367–387.
   Google Scholar
• Hoechle, D. 2007. “Robust Standard Errors for Panel Regressions with Cross-Sectional Dependence.” Stata Journal 7 (3): 281–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooffacker, G., and K. Meier. 2017. La Roches Einführung in den praktischen Journalismus [La Roche’s Introduction to Practical Journalism]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Hox, J. J. 2010. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications (2nd ed.). Quantitative Methodology Series. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Iorio, S. H. 2014. Qualitative Research in Journalism: Taking it to the Streets. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jasso, G. 2006. “Factorial Survey Methods for Studying Beliefs and Judgments.” Sociological Methods & Research 34 (3): 334–423. doi:10.1177/0049124105283121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamhawi, R., and D. Weaver. 2003. “Mass Communication Research Trends From 1980 to 1999.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80 (1): 7–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klimmt, C., and R. Weber. 2013. “Das Experiment in der Kommunikationswissenschaft [The Experiment in Communication Studies].” In Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der Kommunikationswissenschaft, edited by W. Möhring and D. Schlütz, 125–144. Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Knudsen, E., and M. P. Johannesson. 2018. “Beyond the Limits of Survey Experiments: How Conjoint Designs Advance Causal Inference in Political Communication Research.” Political Communication, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1493009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruikemeier, S., and S. Lecheler. 2018. “News Consumer Perceptions of New Journalistic Sourcing Techniques.” Journalism Studies 19 (5): 632–649. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1192956.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leshner, G. 2012. “The Basics of Experimental Research in Media Studies.” In The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, edited by A. N. Valdivia, Vol. 40, 236–254. Oxford: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems181.
   Google Scholar
• Lilienthal, V., S. Weichert, D. Reineck, A. Sehl, and S. Worm. 2014. Digitaler Journalismus [Digital Journalism]. Berlin: Vistas.
   Google Scholar
• Maas, C. J. M., and J. J. Hox. 2005. “Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling.” Methodology 1 (3): 86–92.
   Google Scholar
• Matthes, J., F. Marquart, B. Naderer, F. Arendt, D. Schmuck, and K. Adam. 2015. “Questionable Research Practices in Experimental Communication Research: A Systematic Analysis from 1980 to 2013.” Communication Methods and Measures 9 (4): 193–207. doi:10.1080/19312458.2015.1096334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor, S. C., and L. Molyneux. 2018. “Twitter’s Influence on News Judgment: An Experiment among Journalists.” Journalism, 1464884918802975.
   Google Scholar
• Mothes, C. 2016. “Biased Objectivity: An Experiment on Information Preferences of Journalists and Citizens.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance Online Publication, doi:10.1177/1077699016669106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nezlek, J. B. 2011. Multilevel Modeling for Social and Personality Psychology. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nisic, N., and K. Auspurg. 2009. “Faktorieller Survey und klassische Bevölkerungsumfrage im Vergleich [Comparing Factorial Surveys and Traditional Surveys].” In Klein Aber Fein!: Quantitative Empirische Sozialforschung mit kleinen Fallzahlen, edited by P. Kriwy and C. Gross, 211–245. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Obermaier, M., T. Koch, and C. Riesmeyer. 2015. “Deep Impact?: How Journalists Perceive the Influence of Public Relations on Their News Coverage and Which Variables Determine This Impact.” Communication Research 45 (7): 1031–1053. doi:10.1177/0093650215617505.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, T. E. 2000. Doing Well and Doing Good: How Soft News and Critical Journalism are Shrinking the News Audience and Weakening Democracy-and What News Outlets can do About it. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, T. E., and W. Donsbach. 1996. “News Decisions: Journalists as Partisan Actors.” Political Communication 13 (4): 455–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., and A. S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Reinardy, S. 2011. “Newspaper Journalism in Crisis: Burnout on the Rise, Eroding Young Journalists’ Career Commitment.” Journalism 12 (1): 33–50. doi:10.1177/1464884910385188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reineck, D., V. Lilienthal, A. Sehl, and S. Weichert. 2017. “Das faktorielle Survey. Methodische Grundsätze, Anwendungen und Perspektiven einer innovativen Methode für die Kommunikationswissenschaft [Factorial Survey. Methodology, Usage, and Perspective of an Innovative Method in Communication Science].” M&K Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 65 (1): 101–116.
   Google Scholar
• Reinemann, C., J. Stanyer, S. Scherr, and G. Legnante. 2012. “Hard and Soft News: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.” Journalism 13 (2): 221–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, P. H. 1979. “Vignette Analysis: Uncovering the Normative Structure of Complex Judgments.” In Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research: Papers in Honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld, edited by R. K. Merton, J. S. Coleman, and P. H. Rossi, 176–186. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, K. 2003. Ethics & Journalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. B. 2001. “E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6 (2), JCMC621.
   Google Scholar
• Shoemaker, P. J., and S. D. Reese. 1996. Mediating the Message. White Plains, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, P., and C. Atzmüller. 2006. “Experimentelle Vignettendesigns in Faktoriellen Surveys [Experimental Vignette Designs in Factorial Surveys].” Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie 58 (1): 117–146. doi:10.1007/s11575-006-0006-9.
   Google Scholar
• Su, D., and P. Steiner. 2018. “An Evaluation of Experimental Designs for Constructing Vignette Sets in Factorial Surveys.” Sociological Methods & Research 1, doi:10.1177/0049124117746427.
   Google Scholar
• Thorson, E., R. Wicks, and G. Leshner. 2012. “Experimental Methodology in Journalism and Mass Communication Research.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 89 (1): 112–124. doi:10.1177/1077699011430066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vos, D. 2016. “How Ordinary MPs Can Make it Into the News: A Factorial Survey Experiment with Political Journalists to Explain the Newsworthiness of MPs.” Mass Communication and Society 19 (6): 738–757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahl-Jorgensen, K., and T. Hanitzsch. 2009. The Handbook of Journalism Studies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wallander, L. 2009. “25 Years of Factorial Surveys in Sociology: A Review.” Social Science Research 38 (3): 505–520. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.03.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, D. H. 2008. “Methods in Journalism Research – Survey.” In Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future, edited by M. Löffelholz, D. H. Weaver, and A. Schwarz, 106–116. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, D. H., and L. Willnat. 2012. “Journalists in the 21st Century.” In The Global Journalist in the 21st Century, edited by D. H. Weaver and L. Willnat, 529–551. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, D. H., and L. Willnat. 2016. “Changes in US Journalism: How Do Journalists Think About Social Media?” Journalism Practice 10 (7): 844–855.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler, B. 2014. “ AlgDesign: Algorithmic Experimental Design.” https://cran.r-project.org/package=AlgDesign.
   Google Scholar