Correlates of Party, Ideology and Issue Based Extremity in an era of Egocentric Publics

We extend the study of political extremity to an evolving media landscape. We differentiate between political and non-political uses of both “traditional” and “new” media, and situate political extremity within a new conceptualization of public– egocentric publics –a meso-level phenomenon enabled by new communication technologies that overcomes the traditional dichotomy of small groups and mass publics. Testing the relationship between information, expression, and extremity in Colombia, a sociopolitical context with high levels of polarization and distrust, we find that traditional media use is mostly unrelated to the tested forms of extremity: party-, ideology-, or issue-based. In turn, expressive Internet use is related to extremity and—contrary to what some commentators have feared—this relationship is negative. Lower extremity associated with online expression is consistent with the notion of egocentric publics advanced in this article. The results underscore the importance of differentiating between various media formats in political communication research, reveal the media correlates of various forms of extremity can take, and provide evidence that the emerging publics made possible by new media are not necessarily polarizing.

[1]  M. Hindman The Myth of Digital Democracy , 2008 .

[2]  James Shanahan,et al.  Television and Authoritarianism: Exploring the Concept of Mainstreaming , 1998 .

[3]  George Y. Bizer,et al.  Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes , 2006 .

[4]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Selective Exposure to Campaign Communication: The Role of Anticipated Agreement and Issue Public Membership , 2008, The Journal of Politics.

[5]  William S. Cleveland,et al.  Graphical Methods for Data Presentation: Full Scale Breaks, Dot Charts, and Multibased Logging , 1984 .

[6]  M. Rokeach,et al.  Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. A Theory of Organization and Change , 1968 .

[7]  K. Newton Mass Media Effects: Mobilization or Media Malaise? , 1999, British Journal of Political Science.

[8]  Robert E. Goodin,et al.  Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics , 2006 .

[9]  Douglas D. Roscoe,et al.  Exploring the Attitudinal Structure of Partisanship , 2010 .

[10]  Ties ‘ Carrying Online Participation Offline ’ ’ — Mobilization by Radical Online Groups and Politically Dissimilar Offline Ties , 2009 .

[11]  M. Fiorina,et al.  Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America , 2004 .

[12]  Ann N. Crigler,et al.  Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. , 1993 .

[13]  Magdalena Wojcieszak,et al.  ‘Don’t talk to me’: effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism , 2010, New Media Soc..

[14]  Mira Sotirovic,et al.  Effects of Media Use on Complexity and Extremity of Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty and Prisoners' Rehabilitation , 2001 .

[15]  E. Katz,et al.  Uses and Gratifications Research , 2019, The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies.

[16]  Westone,et al.  Home Page , 2004, 2022 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Cybernetics Technology & Applications (ICICyTA).

[17]  Hernando Rojas,et al.  Mobilizers Mobilized: Information, Expression, Mobilization and Participation in the Digital Age , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[18]  Stephen W. King Communication and social influence , 1975 .

[19]  L. Shrum The Relationship of Television Viewing with Attitude Strength and Extremity: Implications for the Cultivation Effect , 1999 .

[20]  Hernando Rojas,et al.  Strategy Versus Understanding , 2008, Commun. Res..

[21]  A. Tesser Self-Generated Attitude Change , 1978 .

[22]  P. Converse The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics , 2004 .

[23]  John D. Huber Values and partisanship in left-right orientations: measuring ideology , 1989 .

[24]  Kyle L. Saunders,et al.  Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America , 2005 .

[25]  T. Carsey,et al.  Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics , 2010, American Political Science Review.

[26]  Christian Balliu,et al.  Traduire les maux , 2005 .

[27]  A. Gelman,et al.  Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. , 2008, AJS; American journal of sociology.

[28]  John H. Evans Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized?—An Update* , 2003 .

[29]  J. Jost The end of the end of ideology. , 2006, The American psychologist.

[30]  S. Chambers,et al.  Bad Civil Society , 2001 .

[31]  John Gastil,et al.  From Group Member to Democratic Citizen: How Deliberating with Fellow Jurors Reshapes Civic Attitudes , 2008 .

[32]  N. Milburn To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. , 1983 .

[33]  Wilbur Schramm,et al.  The Process and Effects of Mass Communication , 1973 .

[34]  Young Min Baek,et al.  Deliberative and Participatory Democracy? Ideological Strength and the Processes Leading from Deliberation to Political Engagement , 2010 .

[35]  Thomas Hove,et al.  The Networked Public Sphere , 2006 .

[36]  Bartholomew H. Sparrow Engaging the Public: How Government and the Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy (review) , 2010 .

[37]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs , 2006 .

[38]  Kyu S. Hahn,et al.  Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use , 2009 .

[39]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign , 1968 .

[40]  Magdalena Wojcieszak,et al.  Bridging the Divide or Intensifying the Conflict? How Disagreement Affects Strong Predilections about Sexual Minorities , 2010 .

[41]  Barry Wellman,et al.  The community question re-evaluated , 1987 .

[42]  C. Sunstein Republic.com , 2001 .

[43]  Donald F. Roberts,et al.  The Process and Effects of Mass Communication Revised Edition , 1971 .

[44]  James S. Fishkin,et al.  The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy , 1995 .

[45]  Samuel L. Long Research in micropolitics , 1986 .

[46]  A.M.J. Derks Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections , 2009 .

[47]  M. Baldassare,et al.  Measures of Attitude Strength as Predictors of Willingness to Speak to the Media , 1996 .

[48]  Natalie Jomini Stroud,et al.  Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure , 2008 .

[49]  T. Carsey,et al.  Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate , 2006 .

[50]  Matthew S. Levendusky,et al.  The Microfoundations of Mass Polarization , 2009, Political Analysis.

[51]  Benjamin I. Page Who Deliberates?: Mass Media in Modern Democracy , 1996 .

[52]  Michael Peter Smith,et al.  Power, community and the city , 1988 .

[53]  Andrew R. Binder,et al.  The Soul of a Polarized Democracy , 2009, Commun. Res..

[54]  A. Gerber,et al.  Personality and the Strength and Direction of Partisan Identification , 2012 .

[55]  D. Apter,et al.  Ideology and discontent , 1966 .

[56]  Lifen Cheng,et al.  Moderating Effect of Group Cue While Processing News on Immigration: Is the Framing Effect a Heuristic Process? , 2009 .

[57]  Raymond J. Pingree How Messages Affect Their Senders: A More General Model of Message Effects and Implications for Deliberation , 2007 .