CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 562News Media Framing and Political CommunicationSurvey Methodology and NonresponseMedia Influence and Politics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure

Prior, Markus·2009·Public Opinion Quarterly
DOI 10.1093/poq/nfp002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many studies of media effects use self-reported news expo- sure as their key independent variable without establishing its validity. Motivated by anecdotal evidence that people's reports of their own me- dia use can differ considerably from independent assessments, this study examines systematically the accuracy of survey-based self-reports of news exposure. I compare survey estimates to Nielsen estimates, which do not rely on self-reports. Results show severe overreporting of news exposure. Survey estimates of network news exposure follow trends in Nielsen ratings relatively well, but exaggerate exposure by a factor of 3 on average and as much as eightfold for some demographics. It follows that apparent media effects may arise not because of differences in ex- posure, but because of unknown differences in the accuracy of reporting exposure.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfp002

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bechtel, 1972, Correlates between Observed Behavior and Questionnaire Responses in Television Viewing, 274
  2. Brady, 1986, The Perils of Survey Research: Inter-Personally Incomparable Responses, Political Methodology, 11, 269
  3. Papper, 2004, Middletown Media Studies: Media Multitasking and How Much People Really Use the Media, International Digital Media and Arts Association Journal, 1, 9
  4. Robinson, 1985, The Validity and Reliability of Diaries versus Alternative Time Use Measures, 33
  5. Romer, 2004, Capturing Campaign Dynamics
  6. Zaller, 1996, Analysis of News Exposure Items from the 1995 Pilot

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 562

Related

Metadata

Authors
Prior, M.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Prior, Markus
ORCID
Prior, Markus
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009
Volume
73
Issue
1
Pages
130-143
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
DOI
10.1093/poq/nfp002
OpenAlex
W2109790075
Cited by
561
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 15
FWCI
48.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
measurement validity, overreporting, Nielsen ratings, network news, media influence, survey accuracy, self-assessment bias, television audience measurement

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