Expert answer:Psychology is a contemporary science
Expert answer:Psychology is a contemporary science. Listed below are several recent
papers. For the first part of this assignment, choose two papers to
briefly summarize in a paragraph each, focusing on the contribution each
makes to psychological knowledge in general.The second part of the paper should be a discussion of the
contributions and limitations of the field of psychology in our general
knowledge. In addition, please discuss the follow;
What can we expect to learn in the future?
What are the possible problems we may face with psychology in the future?
This paper should be at least 3 pages in length and use APA formatting
(cover page, paper body formatting, citations, and references. Rubric for Mastery:Identifies the psychological issues from the 1st paper, fully explains contribution to psychology.identifies the psychological issues from the 2nd paper, fully explains contribution to psychology.Correctly defines both contributions limitations.Fully identifies future problems with psychology.
1st_paper.pdf
2nd_paper.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Mass Communication and Society, 18:281–302, 2015
Copyright # Mass Communication & Society Division
of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
ISSN: 1520-5436 print=1532-7825 online
DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2014.940977
Selectively Social Politics: The Differing
Roles of Media Use on Political
Discussion
J. D. Ponder and Paul Haridakis
Department of Studies Studies
Kent State University
In the modern media environment, people are afforded a variety of options for
political information. In addition, people now use multiple media sources (e.g.,
television, radio, blogs) to obtain information about all aspects of politics
(Eveland, 2004; Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2009).
The purpose of this study was to examine how use of particular media sources
influenced the frequency of political discussion with people from the same
political party (political in-group members) and people from a different political party (political out-group members). Guided by a uses and gratifications
perspective, which emphasizes the role of the user in media effects, we examined how specific user background characteristics (e.g., age, sex, political opinion leadership, political social identity, political content affinity), motives for
using traditional and social media for political information, and use of
different media sources work together to influence discussion with political
in-group and out-group members. Our results allowed us to identify several
distinct differences between people who talk to political in-group and outgroup members.
J.D. Ponder (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2012) is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Studies Studies at Kent State University. His research interests include media
uses and effects, identity, learning, and political communication.
Paul Haridakis (Ph.D., Kent State University, 2000) is a Professor in the Department of
Studies Studies at Kent State University. His research interests include media uses and effects,
new communication technologies, freedom of expression and media history.
Correspondence should be addressed to J. D. Ponder, Department of Studies Studies, Kent
State University, 135 Taylor Hall, 300 Midway Drive, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44240. E-mail:
jponder@kent.edu
281
282
PONDER AND HARIDAKIS
INTRODUCTION
In the contemporary media environment, people have a variety of different
media sources from which to acquire political information. People interested
in learning about politics or gaining political information can watch television; listen to the radio; read newspapers, magazines, or books; in addition
to using online sources (e.g., blogs, social networking sites, video sharing
sites). In most cases, people now use multiple media sources (e.g., television,
radio, blogs) to obtain information about politics, political actors, and political issues (Eveland, 2004; Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, 2009).
Perhaps even more important, people also talk with others about politics.
They seek out people who can help them make sense of mediated political
information (Eveland & Shah, 2003; Mutz, 2002). Although the attitudinal
and behavioral effects of political discussion have been well documented,
especially how it can positively affect political knowledge or voting (e.g.,
Delli-Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Kwak, Williams, Wang, & Lee, 2005), the
latter in particular, is related to social capital. There have been claims that
some media use (e.g., television) detracts from civic debate and participation
(Putnam, 2000). On the other hand, newer social media have played an
instrumental role in the creation of political movements (i.e., Occupy Wall
Street, Tea Party movement), and even revolutionary movements (i.e., Arab
Spring). Although such outcomes of media use and discussion have received
much attention, predictors of discussion are relatively unstudied. In
addition, a few scholars have found that people use media differently based
upon the political affiliation of their discussion partners (e.g., Eveland &
Shah, 2003; Mutz, 2002). However, without considering how media users’
individual differences work in conjunction with their media selection to
influence postviewing discussion, we can only speculate about how people
use media content from different media sources to talk about politics with
their political allies versus those who hold opposing political views, or
how viewers of certain types of programs may be more likely to debate politics with political friends and=or foes than are viewers of other programs.
The purpose of this study is to examine how media use influences the
frequency of political discussion with people from the same political party
and people from a different party. This research is guided by a uses and
gratifications perspective. Uses and gratifications researchers posit media
effects, such as post-media-use discussion, as a product of user personal
characteristics, motives for using media, and media use. More important,
this is a process that builds on itself in that personal characteristics influence
motives for using media, which influence media use, which in turn influence
the effects of that use.
IN-GROUP AND OUT-GROUP
283
THE ROLE OF DISCUSSION IN POLITICS
Denton and Woodward (1998) explained that political communication
research focuses on the production, dissemination, processing, and effects
of information, both through the media and interpersonally. In this light,
political discussion is a key component in both disseminating information
and helping people make sense of the information presented to them via
mass media (Delli-Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Eveland & Hively, 2009). People
not only turn to others to help them make sense of the information but also
differentiate between people in their own party (political in-group members)
and people from a different party (political out-group members) as conversation partners (Eveland & Shah, 2003; Eveland & Hively, 2009). Further,
they seek out politically similar others more frequently than politically
dissimilar others when trying to process political information presented
to them via mass media (Borgida, Federico, & Sullivan, 2009; Eveland &
Hively, 2009).
USES AND GRATIFICATIONS
Uses and gratifications is an audience-centered, media effects perspective
that focuses on what people do with the media as opposed to what the media
do to people. Uses and gratifications scholars suggest that individual social
and psychological differences; motives for media use; use of media; and levels
of activity at various points before, during, and after exposure to media all
work together to influence the effects of media exposure (Rubin, 2009).
Uses and gratifications has been applied to examine the use of media
for political information (Eveland, 2004; Hanson, Haridakis, Wagstaff,
Sharma, & Ponder, 2011), motives for using media for political information
(Kaye & Johnson, 2004; McLeod & Becker, 1974), and the effects of political media use, such as political discussion (Eveland, 2004). In the uses and
gratifications framework, discussion has been identified as a common postactivity manifestation of audience activity (Levy & Windahl, 1984; Rubin,
2009). In the context of politics, political discussion allows people to reflect
on and integrate that information into their lives (Eveland, 2004; Rubin &
Perse, 1987).
As just referenced, uses and gratifications is based on the notion that
media users’ social and psychological circumstances influence their media
use. Certain personal characteristics have been particularly salient in the
study of politics and political discussion. In the following sections, we discuss
the role that these particular characteristics play in influencing use of media
for political information and=or political discussion.
284
PONDER AND HARIDAKIS
Demographics
Multiple scholars have examined the role that age and gender play in
explaining differences in using media for political information, media use,
and political discussion. Historically, age and gender have been associated
with different motives people have for using media, the media sources
people use, and the amount of political discussion in which people engage
(Mendez & Osborn, 2010; Mutz, 2002). Specifically, some research has suggested that younger voters tend to be less engaged and less willing to discuss
politics with others than are older voters (Hardy & Scheufele, 2009; Shah,
Kwak, & Holbert, 2001). In addition, there is a substantial body of literature
outlining the differences between men and women in relation to political
participation (Mendez & Obsorn, 2010). For example, Lazarsfeld, Berelson,
and Gaudet (1948) found that women in 1940 tended to vote largely in line
with their husbands. Historically, although women have been activists and
leaders of social movements like prohibition and suffrage, they have largely
been reticent to engage in conversations about the state of the political
environment (e.g., Mendez & Osborn, 2010). Therefore, it is important to
include these characteristics in any model that predicts political discussion.
Political Opinion Leadership
In terms of politics, scholars have suggested that opinion leaders are less
likely to attend to messages from politically different people and institutions
and less likely to speak to out-group members than members of the public
(e.g., Guerin et al., 2004). Conversely, scholars have also found that opinion
leaders are more likely to talk to members of their own political party than
the general public (e.g., Eveland & Shah, 2003; Shah & Scheufele, 2006). In
addition, research on political opinion leadership has consistently suggested
that opinion leaders use more media content in their specific interest area,
are more active during this use, and disseminate it to others in their political
in-group (Shah & Scheufele, 2006). Therefore, it is important to understand
how a person’s degree of opinion leadership could influence motives for
using media for political information, which media sources he or she uses,
and how this use can influence political discussion with political in-group
and out-group members.
Political Social Identity
Previous uses and gratifications researchers have examined how a person’s
membership in a group may influence media use. However, the studies have
not considered the psychological or emotional connection that members feel
with that particular group. This connection, called a person’s social identity,
IN-GROUP AND OUT-GROUP
285
has been linked to motives for media exposure (Huddy, 2001), use of specific
media sources (Stroud, 2008), and even the choice of discussion partners
(Borgida et al., 2009; Stroud, 2008). For instance, Stroud (2008) found that
people who identify with a party selectively use cable television, newspapers,
and the Internet as sources for political information. Further, scholars have
suggested that a person’s identification with a particular social group is
highly influential in determining which discussion partners people choose
after media exposure (Borgida et al., 2009).
Political Content Affinity
Affinity with particular content refers to the level of importance placed
upon the content of media messages by the user (Rubin, 2009). In the uses
and gratifications perspective, people’s affinity with particular content has
been conceptualized as an indicator of audience activity, suggesting
that audience members are more active in their media use and what they
subsequently do with content consumed when they enjoy a specific type
of programming (Holbrook & Hill, 2005). Uses and gratification scholars
have linked media content affinity to more purposive motives for using
media and engaging in postexposure discussion (Holbrook & Hill, 2005;
Levy & Windahl, 1984).
Motives for Using Media for Political Information
Uses and gratifications researchers emphasize that people’s social and
psychological characteristics are sources for the needs and desires people seek
to satisfy through using media and other communication channels. These
needs and desires are manifested in motives that people have for using media.
Researchers have explored a variety of possible motives that people have
for seeking political fare (McLeod & Becker, 1974) and for using specific
media such as the Internet for political fare (Kaye & Johnson, 2004). These
include seeking information, entertainment, relaxation, social utility, and
vote guidance, among others. In addition, when it comes to using the Internet
or specific Internet functions such as YouTube, some users are motivated to
use these newer media sources, in part, because of the convenience of online
use (Hanson et al., 2011; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000). Other scholars have
suggested that users may be motivated to use media fare to increase their
positive feelings attached to group memberships (Harwood, 1999; Huddy,
2001). According to uses and gratifications, the motives that people have
for using particular media content also influence their decisions to select
and use particular media.
286
PONDER AND HARIDAKIS
Media Use
In today’s media landscape, people are afforded a variety of media options
for political information. In such a diverse media environment, people are
given the opportunity to choose the medium (or variety of media) that best
satisfies their needs. Political uses and gratifications researchers have begun
to focus on how people use specific media sources to satisfy their needs
related to politics. Understanding what affects people’s media use for political information has been a common focus of political uses and gratifications
research. For instance, Bennett, Flickinger, and Rhine (2000) found that
Americans who obtained political information from magazines, the newspaper, and television were more likely to engage in political discussion than
those who used more traditional media sources. Conversely, Moy and Gastil
(2006) suggested that the use of newspaper, television network=cable news,
political talk radio, the Internet, and late-night comedy programs tended
to promote political discussion among their users. In light of these varying
conclusions, it was our aim to seek to examine how people selectively seek
out and use a variety of different media to acquire political information,
and ultimately how that media use can influence discussions about politics
with others. In addition, although previous scholars have sought to uncover
the use of various media in the political conversation process, these investigations have been limited in the breadth of media sources measured. Typically,
investigations in this vein use a limited number of media analyzed. Thus in
the fragmented but rich media environment currently available, scholars
need to examine the role of newer media in concert with more traditional
forms in facilitating discussion among citizens. Indeed, scholars have criticized media studies for this very reason, calling for further investigations into
how all media work together to influence political behaviors (e.g., Pfau,
Houston, & Semmler, 2005). In this investigation, we expanded this
approach to multiple media types (18 in all) to examine the media system
more thoroughly.
Elaboration
Elaboration plays an important role in facilitating political discussion.
According to Kwak et al. (2005), elaboration is an important contributor
to political engagement, including discussion. Existing research has demonstrated a strong relationship between elaboration on political information
and the ability to recall and use that information in later discussions
(Eveland, 2004; Scheufele, 2002). In addition, Eveland and Dunwoody
(2000) explained that cognitive elaboration on mediated political information occurs when people connect the media information to information
IN-GROUP AND OUT-GROUP
287
in existing schemas. Eveland (2004) explained that this process occurs when
people anticipate engaging in discussions after their use of media for political
information. Therefore, it is evident that cognitive elaboration should play a
key role in predicting postexposure political discussion with others.
Political Discussion
Scholars consistently have found that people turn to the media to provide
them with topics and information to use in later discussions and how that discussion leads to lasting effects on audience members (e.g., Bennett et al.,
2000; Kim, Wyatt, & Katz, 1999). For instance, Kim et al. (1999) suggested
that political discussion serves as a way for citizens to bridge their personal
experiences to the larger political world. Political discussion was also one of
the major foci in early media effects research that positioned the user as an
active participant (e.g., Lazarsfeld et al., 1948). More recently, researchers
have found that people discuss important news and political issues after
exposure to media content (Eveland, 2004; Kim et al., 1999). These scholars
have argued that discussion (or even the anticipation of it) is an important
part in how people interact with and make sense of political information
available to them through the media.
In terms of in-group and out-group behaviors, researchers have found
that once people identify with a political group, they seek out politically
similar others to make sense of mediated political information (Borgida
et al., 2009; Hogg & Reid, 2006). At the same time, people do talk to politically different others about political information, albeit at a less frequent
rate. In addition, out-group discussion has not been studied as in-depth as
discussion with in-group members (Eveland & Hively, 2009; Mutz, 2002).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
In sum, according to the basic suppositions of uses and gratifications, media
effects are a result of much more than sheer exposure. Effects of media use
are the result of a variety of different factors working together. In the context
of the study, uses and gratifications suggests that (a) individual personal
characteristics of media users (i.e., political opinion leadership, political
social identity, political content affinity) (b) influence motives for using
media for political information, which in turn (c) influence selection of media
for political information, (d) elaboration on political media content, and ultimately the outcome of interest, (e) political discussion. The main research
questions of this particular study asked about the relationship between the
personal characteristics, motives for using media for political information,
288
PONDER AND HARIDAKIS
media use, and elaboration, in predicting political discussion with two
distinct types of political discussants—in-group members and out-group
members. We examined these relationships by posing two research questions.
RQ1: How do user personal characteristics, motives, types, and amount of
media use for political information and elaboration on political content
obtained predict discussion with political in-group members?
RQ2: How do user personal characteristics, motives, types, and amount of
media use for political information and elaboration on political content
obtained predict discussion with political out-group members?
METHOD
Sample
Participants composed a nationwide sample solicited through an online
survey provider—Qualtrics. Qualtrics’ partners recruited a pool of 1,516
participants (approximating the demographic makeup of U.S. voters)
through a variety of online survey sample websites that enable users to sign
up to take surveys. Participants were offered an incentive of $2.25 for filling
in the survey, which took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Three
hundred fifty-one people initiated the survey, for a response rate of 23.1%
based on the American Association of Public Opinion Research’s RR3 calculation. This response rate was within the acceptable range for panel-based
surveys (e.g., Curtin, Presser, & Singer, 2 …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades