Approaching the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election From a Diversity of Explanatory Principles: Understanding, Consistency, and Hedonism
Abstract
The explanatory principles of understanding and consistency are used to detail the past, present, and future of individual-level political communication media effects research. It is argued that the field of political communication is at a crossroads, with preferences for a dominant explanatory principle shifting from understanding back to consistency. In addition to understanding and consistency, it is argued that political communication researchers need to begin introducing additional explanatory principles (e.g., hedonism) to the field for the generation of new lines of inquiry. A call for embracing a diversity of explanatory principles is offered, and the utility of such an approach is explored within the context of the 2012 U.S. presidential election.
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?
There are two distinct but coexisting human motivations that account for citizens' choice and consumption of political information: directional versus accuracy.
“It is proposed that there are two distinct but coexisting human motivations that account for citizens' choice and consumption of political information: directional vs. accuracy (Kunda, 1990, or defensive vs. accuracy in Hart et al., 2009, or cognitive consistency vs. understanding in Holbert et al., 2013).”
From Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization (2020) · cites this paper as Holbert et al., 2013
Cites
Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x · Cited by 1,940 · see citing works
Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users
Garrett, R. K. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x · Cited by 1,040 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diehl, T., Weeks, B. E., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2016) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444815616224 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Self-citationCho, J., Ahmed, S., Hilbert, M., Liu, B., & Luu, J. (2020) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2020.1757365 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
- Authors
- Holbert, R. L., Weeks, B. E., & Esralew, S.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- RRC Associates, Boulder, CO, USA
- Venue
- American Behavioral Scientist
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-06-17
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1663-1687
- ISSN
- 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3381
- OpenAlex
- W2064110508
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 4.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- media effects research, political communication, hedonism, 2012 presidential election, individual effects, research agenda
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
