Amy B. Becker

Political Humor as Democratic Relief? The Effects of Exposure to Comedy and Straight News on Trust and Efficacy

Given the increasing prominence and visibility of political comedy programming, communication researchers have made considerable attempts to understand the effects of exposure to this humorous content on common indicators of democratic citizenship like trust in government and political efficacy. Analyzing data from research conducted among undergraduates enrolled at two major public universities in the spring of 2009, the current study offers evidence of a positive relationship between exposure to network political comedy and political trust. Moreover, the results highlight significant relationships between exposure to cable comedy, cable news, online political humor, learning from variety programs, and personal evaluations of internal political efficacy. All told, the current study furthers our understanding of the effects of exposure to comedy and straight news programming on youth political engagement.

Comedy Types and Political Campaigns: The Differential Influence of Other-Directed Hostile Humor and Self-Ridicule on Candidate Evaluations

The current study assesses the effect of exposure to diverse comedy types, measuring the differential impact of other-directed hostile humor and self-ridicule on feelings toward John McCain. Specifically, the analyses use experimental data collected in 2009 to compare the differential impact of viewing a video clip of John McCains playful self-satire on Saturday Night Live with the effects of exposure to the more aggressive, judgmental, other-directed hostile humor of Stephen Colbert. The results suggest that viewers cool toward McCain after exposure to Stephen Colberts other-directed hostile humor. Additional analyses show that the effect of exposure to varied types of political humor is direct and relatively impervious to moderation by political partisanship. Implications of the findings and their ability to help researchers understand the differential influence of varied comedy message types on political evaluations and attitudes is discussed.

A New American Family? Public Opinion toward Family Status and Perceptions of the Challenges Faced by Children of Same-Sex Parents

The present study brings together current thinking on public opinion toward varied family arrangements and perceptions of the challenges faced by children of same-sex parents with recent scholarship from the fields of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT)/family studies in an effort to better contextualize the general populations orientation toward varied household types. Specifically, the research focuses on understanding what factors influence public perceptions of varied family compositions and the implications of these dynamics for those engaged in the practice of family therapy and policy making. Analyzing data from the Pew Research Centers October 2010 Changing American Family Survey, the results suggest that demographics, predispositions, and importantly, views on the state and purpose of marriage, explain the greatest amount of variation in opinions. Furthermore, despite more liberal orientations toward marriage and family, Americans still feel that the children of gay and lesbian couples face more challenges on average than children from other types of family arrangements. The study concludes with a discussion of key findings and implications for policy and practice.

Star Power? Advocacy, Receptivity, and Viewpoints on Celebrity Involvement in Issue Politics

Recognizing the ever-increasing involvement of celebrities in political life, the current study presents an empirical investigation of the impact of celebrity issue politics in the post-2008 election environment. Relying on experimental data collected in the fall of 2009, initial results suggest that the less politically important an issue, the more appropriate it is for celebrities to promote their own viewpoint. The second analysis highlights significant positive relationships between exposure to celebrity issue advocacy appeals and receptivity toward celebrity involvement in politics. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Playing With Politics: Online Political Parody, Affinity for Political Humor, Anxiety Reduction, and Implications for Political Efficacy

The current study examines the relationships between exposure to partisan political parody, affinity for political humor given a desire to reduce anxiety, and internal political efficacy. Analyzing data from a spring 2013 experiment (N = 269), the results suggest that prior media exposure, an affinity for political humor given the desire to reduce anxiety, and a preference for humor that attacks the opposition are significant predictors of political efficacy. In addition, a three-way interaction between partisan identification, humor type, and affinity for political humor (AFPH)–anxiety relative to the dependent variable of internal political efficacy was significant. In particular, high AFPH–anxiety Republicans who viewed Democrat-directed humor were more likely to feel politically efficacious. The significance of the findings is discussed along with suggestions for potential theoretical mechanisms that can guide future academic research on the democratic impacts of politically entertaining media.

From Funny Features to Entertaining Effects: Connecting Approaches to Communication Research on Political Comedy

This article offers points of intersection and difference across communication research on political comedy. Based on our findings, we argue that political comedy scholarship can be usefully divided into two areas: (1) features and (2) effects. Under features, we find three overlapping but distinct areas of emphasis: political comedys rhetorical devices and conventions, its ideological and ethical functions, and its contributions to public culture. Under effects, we construct another four areas, including knowledge and learning, attitudes and opinion, cynicism and engagement, and processing, understanding, and affinity. The essay provides an overview of studies on political comedys features and effects, before concluding with five pathways that can bridge these divides and bring conceptual clarity to future research.

Misperceptions in Polarized Politics: The Role of Knowledge, Religiosity, and Media

Many Americans hold distorted views of elected officials and, as our study shows, the blame is due partly to our ideological biases and partly to mass media. Analyzing a nationally representative online survey, we corroborate recent research that found that one in five Americans still believe president Barack Obama is a Muslim and that almost seven in ten mistakenly think Sarah Palin, and not Saturday Night Live ’s Tina Fey, was the first to say “I can see Russia from my house.” Although race, political ideology, and “born-again” or evangelical Christian status were the primary drivers of misperceptions about Obama’s faith, media use had a more crucial role in predicting the more widespread misperception about Palin. Misattribution of the Fey quote to Palin was greatest among heavy viewers of traditional news media and late-night TV comedy, which is suggestive of the “lamestream media” effect often espoused by prominent Republican figures.

The Problem with Being Joe Biden: Political Comedy and Circulating Personae

This project examined comedic representations of US Vice President Joe Biden to analyze persona rhetoric in a media environment filled with circulating personae, or the many roles both created by and attributed to such figures. While sometimes supportive of the politicians intended roles, we found that circulating personae can disrupt the first persona, complicate the invitations and control exerted over the second persona, propel strategic and non-strategic authorships deflecting or silencing a third persona, and provide an undertow of multiple meanings supplementing a fourth persona. Several implications are drawn, including how circulating personae may neuter roles important to political rhetoric and public culture.

Networked publics: How connective social media use facilitates political consumerism among LGBT Americans

ABSTRACT We test whether connective use of social media mobilizes individuals to engage in political consumerism. Analyzing data from a 2013 survey of LGBT adults (N = 1,197), we find that those who use social media for connective activities, (e.g., to meet new LGBT friends, discuss LGBT issues), are significantly more likely to engage in boycotts or buycotts to promote equality. We find significant interactions between connective social media use and political interest. Specifically, connective social media use mobilizes people with low levels of political interest to participate and reinforces the likelihood that people with high levels of political interest participate.

When Political Comedy Turns Personal: Humor Types, Audience Evaluations, and Attitudes

This study examines the impact of diverse comedy types on relevant political attitudes and what happens when the comedy content moves beyond the political to focus on personal attributes that are beyond a politicians control. Using a real political case study of David Paterson, New Yorks first blind and African American governor, the research measured the differential impact of exposure to self-directed and other-directed hostile humor on evaluations of comedy content, favorability ratings, perceptions of media portrayals of disability, and attitudes toward blindness. The results suggest that differential exposure to the comedy clips had an impact on attitudes toward blindness with those exposed to Patersons humor exhibiting more positive attitudes toward blindness than those who were exposed to Saturday Night Lives other-directed hostile humor.