Theory and Research in Mass Communication
Abstract
Jennings Bryant, Dorina Miron; Theory and Research in Mass Communication, Journal of Communication, Volume 54, Issue 4, 1 December 2004, Pages 662–704, htt
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?
Individuals exhibit a preference for opinion-reinforcing political information and systematically avoid opinion challenges.
“the existing literature on the selective exposure theory (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 1944; Bryant and Miron 2004; Stroud 2008; Iyengar and Hahn 2009) that argues that individuals exhibit a preference for opinion-reinforcing political information and that they systematically avoid opinion challenges.”
From Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data (2015) · cites this paper as Bryant and Miron 2004
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 128 · Cited by 545
- Authors
- Bryant, J., & Miron, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-12-01
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 662-704
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2466
- OpenAlex
- W1998439138
- Cited by
- 545
- References
- 128
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 37
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
- Keywords
- mass communication theory, mass communication research
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
