Blinded by the Spite? Path Model of Political Attitudes, Selectivity, and Social Media

References

• Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). Transformation and polarization: The 2008 presidential election and the new American electorate. Electoral Studies, 29, 594–603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abramowitz, A. I. (2013, November). Partisan nation: The rise of affective partisan polarization in the American electorate. Paper presented at the State of the Parties Conference, University of Akron, Akron, OH.
   Google Scholar
• Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2005). Why can’t we all get along? The reality of a polarized America. The Forum, 3, Article 1.
   Google Scholar
• Agrifoglio, R., Black, S., & Metallo, C. (2010). Twitter acceptance: The role of intrinsic motivations. Proceedings of ALPIS. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(9). Retrieved from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-9
   Google Scholar
• Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and House members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96, 127–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 641–678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Citrin, J., & Green, D. P. (1986). Presidential leadership and the resurgence of trust in government. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 431–453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dautrich, K., & Hartley, T. H. (1999). How the news media fail American voters: Causes, consequences, and remedies. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2016). Key facts about partisanship and political animosity in America. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/22/key-facts-partisanship/
   Google Scholar
• Doise, W. (1969). Intergroup relations and polarization of individual and collective judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 136–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture wars? The myth of polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Galston, W. A. (2010). Can a polarized American party system be ‘healthy’? Issues in Governance Studies, 34, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Gallup. (2015). Confidence in institutions. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 265–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35, 113–134.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40, 309–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, B. (2015). What makes someone a cyber Balkan? Finding the linkages between social psychology and self-selectivity in U.S. politics online. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23, 225–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grynaviski, J. D. (2010). Partisan bonds. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Han, H., & Brady, D. W. (2007). A delayed return to historical norms: Congressional party polarization after the Second World War. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 505–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbridge, L., & Malhotra, N. (2011). Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in Congress: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 494–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, W., Albarracin, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92, 791–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how democracy should work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Himelboim, I., Hansen, D., & Bowser, A. (2013). Playing in the same Twitter network: Political information seeking in the 2010 gubernatorial elections. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 1373–1396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141–1151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Hahn, L. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or “cyberghettos”? A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 60–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the Blog: How reliance on traditional media and the Internet influence perceptions of credibility of Weblogs among Blog users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 622–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2006). Blog day afternoon: Are blogs stealing audiences away from traditional media sources? In R. Berenger (Ed.), Cybermedia go to war (pp. 291–302). Spokane, WA: Marquette Books.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2009). In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components of the Internet among politically interested Internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 175–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2013). Putting out fire with gasoline: Testing the Gamson hypothesis on media reliance and political activity. Journal of Broadcasting &Electronic Media, 57, 456–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2014). Credibility of social network sites for political information among politically interested Internet users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 957–974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2015). Site effects: How reliance on social media influences confidence in government and the news media. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 127–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. J., Zhang, W., & Bichard, S. L. (2011). Voices of convergence or conflict? A path analysis investigation of selective exposure to political websites. Social Science Computer Review, 29, 448–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, D. A. (2004). Why Americans don’t trust the media: A preliminary analysis. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9, 60–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, J. M. (2012). Confidence in U.S. public schools at new low: Confidence also at new lows for organized religion, banks and TV news. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/155258/Confidence-Public-Schools-New-Low.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Ju, A., Jeong S. H., & Chyi, H. I. (2014). Will social media save newspapers? Examining the effectiveness of Facebook and Twitter as news platforms. Journalism Practice, 8, 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Kaye, B. K. (2010). Between Barack and a net place: Users and uses of social network sites and blogs for political information. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), The networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 208–231). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2011). Hot diggity blog: A cluster analysis examining motivations and other factors for why people judge different types of blogs as credible. Mass Communication & Society, 14, 236–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeter, S. (2009, February). New tricks for old—and new—dogs. Keynote address to the 31st Annual Research Symposium, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNS, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 971–977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., Hsu, S.-H., & Gil de Zúñiga (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63, 498–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counter-attitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, T., & Ikeda, K. (2009). Selective exposure in political web browsing. Information, Communication and Society, 12, 929–953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushin, M. J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication & Society, 13, 608–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, E., Sides, J., & Farrell, H. (2010). Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 8, 141–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebo, M. J., McGlynn, A. J., & Koger, G. (2007). Strategic party government: Party influence in Congress, 1789–2000. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 464–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57, 611–623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. G. (1987). The confidence gap, expanded edition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I. & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates International Journal of Market Research, 50, 79–104.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2013). The rise of uncivil agreement: Issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 140–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56, 27–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moy, P., & Pfau, M. (2000). With malice toward all? The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Ornstein, N. (2014). What’s wrong with Washington? Tribalism. Governance, 27, 179–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2012). In changing news landscape, even television is vulnerable. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-television-is-vulnerable.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2014). Political polarization in action: Insights into the 2014 election from the American Trends Panel. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/10/10-17-14-Polarization-and-the-2014-Election-release.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojas, H. (2008). Strategy vs. understanding: How orientations toward political conversation influence political engagement. Communication Research, 34, 452–480.
   Google Scholar
• Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W.P.Jr., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (2011). The Internet and campaign 2010. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/03/17/the-internet-and-campaign-2010/
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (2013). Civic engagement in the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (2014). 6 new facts about Facebook. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-facts-about-facebook/
   Google Scholar
• Stephens, M., Yoo, J., Mourao, R., Gutierrez, F. M., Baresch, B., & Johnson, T. J. (2016). The life of the Tea Party: Differences between Tea Party and Republican media use and political variables. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 24, 157–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60, 556–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66, 354–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., & Neville-Shepard, R. (2011). The polarizing influence of fragmented media: Lessons from Howard Dean. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 19, 201–2105
   Google Scholar
• Witte, J. C., Amoroso, L. M., & Howard, P. E. N. (2000). Method and representation in Internet-based survey tools: Mobility, community, and cultural identity in Survey2000. Social Science Computer Review, 18, 179–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolley, J. A., Limperos, A. M., & Oliver, M. B. (2010). The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: A content analysis of user-generated political Facebook groups. Mass Communication & Society, 13, 584–607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, W., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. L. (2013). Two sides of the same coin: Assessing the influence of social network site use during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 542–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar