William P. Eveland

Understanding the Relationship Between Communication and Political Knowledge: A Model Comparison Approach Using Panel Data

The purpose of this study was to examine more closely the assumptions of causality in research on communication and political knowledge. Although most communication theory suggests that communication causes learning, some have argued for the reverse causal direction or reciprocal causality. Others have confounded these concepts—in conjunction with political interest—in measures of political “sophistication” or “expertise.” We collected panel data (N = 1,109) on a national sample in June and November 2000. We employed a model comparison approach to identify the best fitting model among alternatives that included models of unidirectional and reciprocal causality in both lagged and synchronous models, controlling for prior political interest and various demographic factors. The data are most consistent with a model of causality that is unidirectional running from Time 2 measures of news use and political discussion to Time 2 political knowledge.

Perceived Media Influence and Efficacy as Predictors of Caregivers' Protective Behaviors

A survey of 265 caregivers of 2nd through 8th graders was conducted to understand active mediation, restrictive mediation, and support for censorship. Active mediation and support for censorship occurred more frequently with violent television than with sexual television. Caregivers believed that other children were more likely to be affected by harmful content. Their use of protective behaviors depended on perceived threat for their own and other children, and perceptions of self-and response efficacy. When high threat perceptions were paired with efficacy assessments, caregivers used active mediation. When high threat perceptions overrode efficacy assessments, caregivers used restrictive mediation or supported censorship.

Exposure, Attention, or “Use” of News? Assessing Aspects of the Reliability and Validity of a Central Concept in Political Communication Research

The concept of news media use 1 has been at the center of political communication research during the past several decades. Historically, scholars have employed measures of exposure to news (Atkin, Galloway, & Nayman, 1976), attention to news (Chaffee & Schleuder, 1986; McLeod & McDonald, 1985), and reliance on news (Culbertson & Stempel, 1986) to tap this concept. Moreover, they have been interested in determining the influence of the use of news on various political outcomes, including political knowledge, political participation, and public opinion. Despite a massive accumulation of literature on these topics, what is missing is a consistent and validated survey measure of news use (Chaffee, 2001). 1Although others have used the broader term “media orientations” (McLeod & McDonald, 1985), we employ the term “use” as a superordinate label that can subsume exposure, attention, or some combination of the two. More than 20 studies since 2004 have employed this term in their titles or abstracts alone, and it seems to us a useful shorthand for both the behavioral (exposure) and cognitive (attention) components of experiencing news. Given the centrality of this concept and its measurement to the field, it seems appropriate that efforts to better understand the implication of various conceptualizations and measurement approaches be undertaken. Some research on this topic, with an exclusive emphasis on exposure measures, has appeared in recent years (e.g., Althaus & Tewksbury, 2007; Chang & Krosnick, 2003), but more is needed, particularly given the heavy use of both exposure and attention measures in the extant literature. In this study, we focus on the internal consistency, dimensional structure, and some aspects of validity of measures of frequency of exposure and attention to various news media sources as predictors of political knowledge. We also address analysis issues that follow from the measurement issues. Following prior research (e.g., Price & Zaller, 1993), we focus on political knowledge as an important validity criterion, although we certainly acknowledge that other criteria, such as political participation, may be equally important.

Contextual Antecedents and Political Consequences of Adolescent Political Discussion, Discussion Elaboration, and Network Diversity

Understanding how adolescents come to be informed participants in a democracy is a key concern in political socialization scholarship. However, our understanding of this process is hampered by limited research on the antecedents of a sufficiently wide array of communication behaviors and cognitions, in addition to a limited repertoire of knowledge outcomes in adolescent research. This study seeks to further the literature by addressing how discussion frequency, elaboration, and network diversity are related to factual and structural knowledge among adolescents. In addition, we utilize multilevel modeling to assess both school and parental effects on the various elements of political discussion. Results suggest that frequency of discussion is related to both factual and structural knowledge, whereas discussion elaboration is related only to structural knowledge. The multilevel models suggest that aspects of both schools and families are related to discussion frequency, elaboration, and network diversity.

The “Who” Matters: Types of Interpersonal Relationships and Avoidance of Political Disagreement

Research consistently finds that we discuss politics most often with our strong ties (i.e., our close, intimate others). As our strong ties tend to be more politically similar to us than not, the conclusion is that everyday political discussions are overwhelmingly characterized by real or perceived political agreement. However, this scenario may paint only a partial portrait of everyday political discussion. Neglected is the distinction between politically similar discussion partners, on the one hand, and similarity of views expressed during conversation, on the other. Although our strong ties may be more politically similar to us than not, they may, paradoxically, be just the people with whom we are likely to express disagreement. Indeed, this study illustrates that although discussion with strong ties increases the probability of agreement, it simultaneously increases the likelihood of discussing disagreement.

Assessing Causality in the Relationship Between Community Attachment and Local News Media Use

Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship between community attachment and local news media use. Despite calls for panel studies to determine the direction of causality in this relationship, there is little evidence beyond cross-sectional surveys, which are often further limited to single communities. In order to contribute to the debate about causal direction, we conducted a four-wave national panel study with repeated measurement of community attachment and local news media use. Cross-sectional analyses confirmed the expected relationship between news use and community attachment. However, more conservative panel analyses controlling for a lagged measure of the dependent variable failed to produce evidence of causal relationships. The hypothesized role of population density and ethnic diversity as cross-level moderators of this relationship was examined using multilevel modeling. Methodological and theoretical reasons for the results are discussed and suggestions for alternative study designs are proposed.

Observations on Estimation of Communication Effects on Political Knowledge and a Test of Intracommunication Mediation

The four studies in this issue—by happenstance all submitted on similar topics, using similar methods, and at approximately the same time to the same journal—indicate the centrality of the study of political learning from communication sources to the broader domain of political communication scholarship. The fact that two articles are by political scientists and two are by communication scholars also communicates that researchers in both fields are working on and making solid contributions to this topic. There are many consistencies, as well as some notable inconsistencies, in these efforts. Three of the four articles take the uncommon approach of employing panel data. These panel data—unlike the data gathered as part of the ANES that do not measure the most relevant variables for political learning research across both waves of data collection—allow more sophisticated analyses that account for prior levels of the independent variables, the dependent variable, or both. This is an important advancement that should be followed in future research. It also appears important to consider knowledge of different forms and at different levels. The Druckman and Craig et al. articles both consider knowledge of state-level candidates, whereas our effort and Holbert’s focus on national candidates. One might conclude that differences in findings across the studies could be attributed primarily to study context differences. There is certainly reason to consider this explanation, because there is generally less coverage of state-level races than national races in the media environment (Kaplan, Goldstein, & Hale, 2005). In addition, most studies of local television news indicate that political content is infrequent and less prominent than various forms of sensationalism (Klite, Bardwell, & Salzman, 1997; Slattery & Hakanen, 1994).

Political Network Size and Its Antecedents and Consequences

Recent evidence supports the important political role that political network size and distribution plays at both the individual and system levels. However, we argue that the evidence is likely stronger than the current literature suggests due to network size measurement limitations in the extant literature. The most common approach to measuring political network size in sample surveys—the “name generator” approach—normally constrains network size measurement to three to six individuals. Because of this constraint, research often undercounts individual network size and also leads to a misrepresentation of the distribution of the underlying variable. Using multiple data sets and alternative measurement approaches, we reveal that political network hubs—individuals with inordinately large network sizes not captured by name generators—exist and can be identified with a simple summary network measure. We also demonstrate that the summary network size measure reveals the expected differences in communicative, personality, and political variables across network size better than name generator measures. This suggests that not only has prior research failed to identify network hubs, but it has likely underestimated the influence of political network size at the individual level.

The Impact of News Use and News Content Characteristics on Political Knowledge and Participation

Research has examined the relationship between traditional news media use and normatively important political outcomes such as knowledge and participation. However, most research fails to account for variations in the nature of news over time and across communities that could alter the fundamental relationship between exposure and these outcomes. Here two studies are presented—one with variation in news characteristics over time based on the American National Election Studies time series data and another with variation across local communities and newspapers within a single state during a single election year—to assess the hypothesis that the relationship between news use and political outcomes are moderated by natural variations in the nature of the news content and news outlets.

The Structure of Communication Networks Matters: How Network Diversity, Centrality, and Context Influence Political Ambivalence, Participation, and Knowledge

The present study focuses on how different features of discussion networks and the contexts in which they reside are related to political ambivalence, participation, and knowledge. Using full sociometric network data derived from 25 different student activity organizations, we reveal complex implications of various facets of discussion networks and their contextual settings. Ambivalence is amplified by being highly central within a discussion network and a political minority within the group. Diversity of one’s egocentric discussion network increases participation, whereas closeness centrality was negatively correlated with participation. High levels of betweenness centrality were most positively associated with knowledge in groups that were relatively political in their orientation compared to those that were apolitical. The results support the argument that communication networks and the contextual settings in which they are situated should be more fully considered in the study of political communication effects.