Political Communication Effects: The Impact of Mass Media and Personal Conversations on Voting

Abstract

In recent years there has been a revived interest in the question of whether the media can not only inform, but also persuade their audiences. Opinions, attitudes, and even behavior are no longer believed to be totally immune from media influences (Page et al. 1987; Ansolabehere et al. 1993; Bartels 1993; Kepplinger et al. 1994; Joslyn and Ceccoli 1996; Zaller 1996; Dalton et al. 1998; Kinder 1998; Schmitt-Beck 2000; Denemark 2002; Farrell and Schmitt-Beck 2002). This chapter will discuss this theme in comparative perspective, with a particular focus on voting decisions. Two different angles of comparison will be applied. One concerns differences and similarities between various countries and societies. As Blumler and Gurevitch note, inspecting political communication in more than one systemic context can serve as an “essential antidote” against ethnocentrism and premature generalizations (Gurevitch and Blumler 1990, 308–9). The empirical basis for analytical statements is extended, and above all it becomes clear to what extent observed relationships are tied to specific settings and contexts (Dogan and Pelassy 1984, 5–19; Kohn 1989, 21–2). Another dimension of comparison concerns different modes of political communication. Voters not only participate in processes of mass communication, thus opening up avenues for media influence; to varying degrees, they also talk to other people and discuss political matters. The messages they receive during such conversations may also influence their attitudes and behavioral intentions (Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.