2009/10/09 by Albert C. L. G. Günther, Nicole E. Miller‐Struttmann, Janice L. Liebhart · 4 citations
Psychology · Social Sciences · #Assimilation (phonology) #Computer science #Contrast (vision) #Linguistics #Media Influence and Politics #Media Studies and Communication #Psychology #Social Media and Politics #Social psychology #Test (biology)
paper · doi:10.1177/0093650209346804
openalex publication_date 2009/10/09 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/21
Recent empirical research has vividly demonstrated the hostile media effect—the tendency for individuals highly involved in a controversial issue to see media coverage of that issue as hostile to their own point of view. This type of contrast bias—along with its assimilation counterpart—is hypothesized to stem from preexisting partisan attitudes coupled with other explanatory factors, including perceived reach of the message and characteristics of the source. To test these predictions, we recruited partisan respondents who were either Native American or sympathetic to native issues. Participants ( N = 152) read information, varying in apparent circulation (low, medium and high reach) and source (friendly vs. not friendly) characteristics, on the issue of genetically modified wild rice, a controversial topic for native people in the upper Midwest. Variations in reach produced a linear trend in judgments of bias in the predicted direction. However, overall evaluations tended toward assimilation rather than contrast effects, and two distinct dimensions of partisanship produced surprising and provocative results.