Partisan Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward the Opposition
Abstract
How has the rise of partisan media outlets changed how citizens perceive the other party? In particular, does watching partisan news sources make citizens dislike and distrust the other party? Drawing on social identity theory, I explain how the slanted presentation of the news on partisan outlets leads viewers to perceive the other party more negatively, to trust them less, and to be less supportive of bipartisanship. Using a series of original experiments, I find strong support for my arguments. I conclude by discussing the normative and empirical implications of these findings.[Supplementary material is available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Political Communication for the following free supplemental resource(s): full details of the experiments, including descriptions of the samples, protocol, and text of the stimuli, results of manipulation checks, the replication of experiment 2 described in the text, and additional statistical results.]
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Like-minded information can polarize.
“although like-minded information can polarize30–32”
From Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
In other cases, affective polarization measurement combines cognitive and affective aspects, as when asking degree of confidence that a candidate will do the right thing.
“En otros casos, se trataría más bien de una combinación de aspectos cognitivos y afectivos, como cuando se indaga por el grado de confianza en que un determinado candidato hará lo correcto (Levendusky, 2013).”
From El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica (2022) · cites this paper as Levendusky, 2013
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 236
- Authors
- Levendusky, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Levendusky, Matthew
- ORCID
- Levendusky, Matthew
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 565-581
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W2114431483
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 19.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- partisan media, intergroup perception, social identity theory, news framing, political polarization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
