Cited by 51Climate Change Communication and PerceptionMedia Influence and PoliticsCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

Extending the Impacts of Hostile Media Perceptions: Influences on Discussion and Opinion Polarization in the Context of Climate Change

Hart, P. Sol, Feldman, Lauren, Leiserowitz, Anthony, Maibach, Edward·2015·Science Communication

Abstract

Researchers recently have begun to examine how hostile media perceptions may promote discursive activities aimed at correcting the media’s perceived negative influence. We use nationally representative survey data to test a moderated-mediation model that finds that hostile media perceptions significantly affect support for climate mitigation policies through the mediator of discussion and that the link between discussion and policy support is moderated in a three-way interaction with social network heterogeneity and political ideology. Discussion in homogeneous social networks increases opinion polarization between liberals and conservatives by intensifying conservatives’ opinions, whereas discussion in heterogeneous social networks decreases polarization by moderating liberals’ opinions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1075547015592067

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Possessing ideologically homogeneous networks exacerbates issue and affective polarization, whereas having a heterogeneous network facilitates the correction of stereotypical misconceptions and decreases polarization.

    “possessing ideologically homogeneous networks exacerbates issue and affective polarization, whereas having a heterogeneous network facilitates the correction of stereotypical misconceptions and decreases polarization223–227.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 67 · Cited by 51

Authors
Hart, P. S., Feldman, L., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
Venue
Science Communication
Published
2015-07-09
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
506-532
ISSN
  • 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-5470
  • 1552-8545
OpenAlex
W1873947634
Cited by
51
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5
FWCI
11.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Science Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
hostile media perception, online discourse, political ideology, opinion polarization, liberals and conservatives, moderated mediation, climate change communication

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