Viewing Conventional and Comedy Television News

Home , News satire, Not Necessarily the News

Viewing Conventional and Comedy Television News:

A Comparison of Antecedents and Media Effects

A dissertation submitted to the College of Communication and Information of Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Christopher Hariasz

December, 2012

Dissertation written by

Christopher Hariasz

M.S., Drexel University, 1987

Ph.D., Kent State University, 2012

Approved by

Paul Haridakis, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Stanley T. Wearden, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Shawn Fitzgerald, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Jennifer McCullough, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Accepted by

Paul Haridakis, Ph.D., Director, School of Communication Studies

Stanley T. Wearden, Ph.D., Dean, College of Communication and Information

Table of Contents

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF TABLES vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT 1 Background and Statement of Problem 2 Rationale for the Study 8 Theoretical Framework – Uses and Gratifications 14 Comedy News Programing 17 Predictors of Television News Exposure 20 Age 21 Gender 23 Need for Cognition 24 Political Orientation 26 Viewer Motives 29 Co-Viewing 32 Viewer Involvement 34 Effects of Television News Exposure 37 Political Self-Efficacy 37 Political Knowledge 39 The News Viewing Process Model 42 Hypotheses and Research Questions 42

II. METHODOLOGY 51 Sampling Procedure 52 Measures 54 Exposure to Conventional and Parody News 54 Political Ideology 56 Need for Cognition 56 Viewer Motives 58 Co-Viewing 65 Cognitive Involvement 65 Affective Involvement 67 Political Knowledge 69 Political Self-Efficacy 72

iii

Statistical Analysis 73 Computation of Viewer Motivation Variables 73 Relationships Between Variables in the Viewing Process 73 Differences Between the Processes of Viewing Conventional and Comedy News 74

III. RESULTS 75 Hypotheses 75 Research Questions 76 Predicting Political Knowledge and Political Self-Efficacy 80 Predicting Political Knowledge for Conventional News Viewing 81 Predicting Political Self-Efficacy for Conventional News Viewing 84 Predicting Political Knowledge for Comedy News Viewing 87 Predicting Political Self-Efficacy for Comedy News Viewing 89 Post-Hoc Analyses – Impact of Programing Genre 92

IV. DISCUSSION 94 Observations on Selected Individual Variables 95 Age 95 Gender 96 Viewer Motives 96 Exposure 97 Cognitive Involvement 98 Affective Involvement 98 Political Knowledge 99 Political Self-Efficacy 99 Relationships Among Predictor Variables 100 The Model of News Viewing 107 Predicting Political Knowledge 107 Predicting Political Self-Efficacy 110 Genre-Related Differences in Media Effects 111 Limitations and Future Directions 113 Limitations of the Sample 113 Limitations of the Study Design 114 Limitations of Instrument Sensitivity 115 Conclusion 118

APPENDICES A. Kent State University Consent Form 120 B. Demographics Questionnaire 122 C. Ideology Index 123

D. Need for Cognition Scale 124 E. Television Viewing Motives Scale 125 F. Exposure to Television News Programs 127 G. Co-Viewing Index 128 H. Cognitive Involvement Scale 129 I. Affective Involvement Scale 130 J. News IQ Quiz 131 K. Political Self-Efficacy Scale 133 L. Television News Survey 134

REFERENCES 151

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Television Viewing Process Model 42

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Exposure to Conventional and Comedy News Programs: Number Watched, Means and Standard Deviations 55

2. Need for Cognition Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations 57 3. Conventional News-Viewing Motives: Item Means and Standard Deviations 59

4. Comedy News-Viewing Motives: Item Means and Standard Deviations 61

5. Factor Loadings for Conventional News Viewing Motives 62

6. Factor Loadings for Comedy News Viewing Motives 64

7. Cognitive Involvement – Conventional News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations 66

8. Cognitive Involvement – Comedy News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations 66

9. Affective Involvement – Conventional News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations 68

10. Affective Involvement – Comedy News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations 68

11. Political Knowledge Scale – Item Means, Standard Deviations and Number of Correct Answers 71

12. Political Self-Efficacy: Item Means and Standard Deviations 73

13. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Knowledge in the Conventional News Viewing Context 82

14. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Self-Efficacy in the Conventional News Viewing Context 85

15. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Knowledge in the Comedy News Viewing Context 88

16. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Self-Efficacy in the Comedy News Viewing Context 90

17. Comparison of Viewer Motivation Sets for Conventional and Comedy News 96

vii

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my co-advisors for their extraordinary patience, guidance and support. I am equally grateful to my committee members for their comments and suggestions.

I greatly appreciate my family’s continuous encouragement and understanding.

I dedicate this work to Faustyna and Maria.

viii 1

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

It is practically a truism that broadcast television is in serious decline as a dominant source of entertainment and information (Harris, 2008; MacDonald, 1990). Competition from the

Internet and other forms of computer-mediated communication has gradually eroded television’s impact. And yet, television seems far from heading the way of dinosaurs. There are several factors contributing to this resilience. Technological features such as the relatively large screen, high definition picture, as well as experiments with 3D technology, certainly help. Television’s virtual ubiquity, its focal role in the social life of many families, and its ease of use are also important assets. Programmers’ creativity and their ability to reinvent the medium enable television to continue to be a force to reckon with.

One instance of such a creative reinvention was the introduction of news delivered in a non-traditional, entertaining format (e.g., the Weekend Update segment on NBC’s Saturday

Night Live, HBO’s Not Necessarily the News). First conceived as pure entertainment, this genre is now considered an important alternative source of news and political knowledge for growing numbers of viewers (Pew, 2004). Scholars have certainly noticed this new phenomenon, and research has been underway to explain the circumstances and consequences of it. Most of this research has been conducted by political scientists, and it concerns issues relating to political knowledge and content analyses. Some researchers devoted their efforts to comparisons between the effects of traditional “serious” news and the newer, more entertaining forms, especially with regard to viewers’ political knowledge. What appear to be missing from this research are analyses comparing the entire multifaceted process of viewing of these diverse news formats, beginning with the act of choosing and ending with media effects.

According to the Uses and Gratifications (U&G) media effects perspective, social and psychological circumstances influence people’s preferences for media and media content, as well as their behavior (audience activity) during the act of consuming their chosen media. U&G scholars have conducted an impressive amount of research on audience activity, especially viewer involvement, during the consumption of conventional (“serious”) television news (Rubin,

1993). However, there exists very little, if any, U&G research on audience activity during consumption of comedy news. I intend to fill this gap by comparing differences in the selection of the genres (conventional vs. comedy), the act of viewing itself (especially involvement), and some of its consequences for audiences (media effects). Specifically, I will attempt to demonstrate that 1) certain social and psychological characteristics guide viewers’ selection of either conventional or comedy news programs, 2) the nature and level of viewer involvement with these two genres depends on the genre selected and the viewing context, and 3) all these differences affect the magnitude of certain media effects.

Television continues to be the predominant source of news in the United States.

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, as much as 71% of Americans get their national and international news from television, as opposed to 42% from the Internet and 33% from newspapers (Pew, 2009). A large and growing segment of that 71% consists of fans of comedy news. Therefore, research into the process of watching this genre of news is justified and likely to yield findings important for various constituencies, including broadcasters, political scientists, and mass communication scholars.

Background and Statement of Problem

Ever since the mid-1970s, the landscape for sources of news information has experienced constant fluctuation, a situation precipitated by the introduction of videocassette recorders and

3 the growth of cable television, and especially the establishment of 24-hour cable news channels, like CNN in 1980 (Anderson, 2004; Harris, 2008). Heretofore relatively stable in its reach and the amount of support it was receiving from the viewers, broadcast television entered a period of slow decline caused by a host of challenges, most notably by competition from new outlets

(MacDonald, 1990). The most important of these were the rapidly multiplying cable and satellite television news channels that lured consumers of news away from the big three networks, and -- a little later -- the Internet, which increasingly draws people away from all traditional sources of news, and may ultimately cause their demise.

Change also was brought on by technological advances within the established media. For example, the introduction of remote control, coupled with the growth of cable and satellite channels, made it easier for viewers to be more selective in their media choices and to sample different viewing options (Perse, 1990a). Those who did not want to watch news or other political programming could now easily avoid it and still watch television (Walker & Bellamy,

1991; Walker, Bellamy, & Traudt, 1993). All this resulted in a fragmented and unpredictable audience that could not be counted upon to show up in front of their TV sets at 6:30 in the evening for their daily dose of news.

A qualitative change in the competitive landscape of news outlets also occurred with the introduction of so called “soft news” television programming, later developed into more specialized subgenres, such as comedy news and parody news. Or, rather, with a realization on the part of broadcasters, politicians, and scholars that certain programs -- traditionally classified as entertainment and thus not considered as belonging to the news genre -- nevertheless are being described by television audiences as important sources of news and political information (Baum,

2002). This new phenomenon holds potentially profound implications for the political process, as well as for democracy in general (Baum, 2003b; Patterson, 2000; Pfau, Cho, & Chong, 2001).

The “soft news” genre still defies a precise definition (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006) and includes a wide range of informational entertainment programming. A narrower and perhaps more interesting subgenre of “soft news” is composed of shows devoted to political humor.

These programs are written in the best tradition of acts by such political stand-up comedians as

George Carlin and Dennis Miller, and also are influenced by various traditional, tabloid, and other less conventional news magazine formats (for example, Hard Copy, or Politically

Incorrect). A flagship of sorts of these kinds of shows is Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, introduced in 1996 and hosted by Jon Stewart since 1999. The basic format of this show is a parody of a conventional newscast, with the anchor delivering a review of and a humorous commentary on current headlines, followed by “reports” from various “correspondents” and interviews with cultural or political personalities.

Comedy news programs like The Daily Show, and its offshoot, The Colbert Report, have quickly gained considerable popularity, especially among young audiences, who often describe them as their primary sources of political news and information (Baym, 2005; Pew, 2004). For example, almost 50% of 18- to 24-year olds, who constitute the largest part of The Daily Show’s audience, watch this program at least on an occasional basis (Pew, 2004). This seems to be a manifestation of a larger, more general trend. It appears that the momentum for news sources is steadily shifting away from traditional, centralized outlets, and toward a multiplicity of alternative sources, including soft news and the Internet (Zogby Interactive, 2008). Therefore, it should not be surprising that the combined audience for soft news programming is about the same as that for news programing on all the networks (Baum, 2003a).

This phenomenon has been noticed both by communication and political science scholars, as well as by politicians in search of new or alternative outlets through which to disseminate information to citizens and to present their candidacies to the electorate. Politicians seeking to reach wider, younger, and relatively sophisticated audiences, began to utilize soft news outlets to launch their election campaigns, or to publicize various policy initiatives

(Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007; Moy, Xenos, & Hess, 2005). For example, President Obama felt compelled to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno in addition to various official press conferences to explain his administration’s action regarding the economic crisis, and his appearance drew the fourth-largest audience in this show’s 16-year history (Weprin, 2009). Similarly, in an effort to persuade young Democratic voters to show up at the polls for the mid-term elections of 2010, President Obama agreed to a potentially risky appearance on The Daily Show (Stolberg, 2010).

Scholars interested in comedy news have posed a number of questions regarding the nature of the phenomenon itself, as well as the desirability of this trend for the political process and socialization of younger generations of citizens, and even for democracy in general (e.g.

Druick, 2009; Fallows, 1996; Patterson, 2000; Pfau, Cho, & Chong, 2001). For example, Trier

(2008) called The Daily Show “the best critical media literacy program on television” (p. 424).

Baym (2005) argued that The Daily Show “uses techniques drawn from genres of news, comedy, and television talk to revive a journalism of critical inquiry and advance a model of deliberative democracy” (p. 259). Baumgartner and Morris (2006) reported increased political self-efficacy

(but also cynicism about media and politics) among viewers of soft news programming. Brewer and Cao (2006) reported a positive correlation between campaign knowledge and exposure to candidates on late-night political comedy shows. Cao (2008) extended this line of research and

6 reported interactive effects of age and education of viewers of political comedy shows on political knowledge. Moy, Xenos, and Hess (2005) asserted that watching political infotainment can enhance political engagement, but not for all sectors of the electorate and not all the time.

Whereas the impact of viewing comedy news on such important citizen and voter characteristics as political knowledge and media literacy has been suggested, only a handful of studies compared how comedy news on the one hand and conventional news on the other might influence such effects. For example, Young and Tisinger (2006) reported that late-night comedy watching among young viewers is positively correlated with watching traditional news programs, and that young people report learning equally from both hard and soft news sources.

Baumgartner and Morris (2006) compared levels of political self-efficacy and cynicism towards politics as effects of viewing comedy and conventional news programs. They reported an increased cynicism resulting from watching parody news, but also a rise in self-efficacy. Kim and Vishak (2008) asserted that entertainment media are less effective than news media in helping viewers to acquire factual information.

In general, the majority of this early research on comedy news programming appears to be concentrated within the realm of political communication science, and comparisons of these types of programs with conventional news that are based on content analyses seem to be the most common (e.g. Brewer & Marquardt, 2007; Fox, Koloen and Sahin, 2007; Uribe and Gunter,

2007). Notably lacking, however, is any examination of the factors leading to the act of choosing comedy news over other genres (including conventional news), as well as any attempt to describe and analyze the actual act of viewing this type of programming. For example, the majority of studies tend to focus on the (political and social) outcomes of watching comedy news, and viewers’ age and education are mentioned as practically the only factors leading to

7 these outcomes (Cao, 2008; Young & Tisinger, 2006). Although Kim and Vishak’s (2008) study touched upon the issue of viewer information processing, systematic studies of the nature of audience participation while viewing comedy news have yet to be conducted.

The importance of research on this issue becomes even more evident when one considers that the center of gravity in the news business appears to be shifting away from traditional channels and serious formulas, and toward newer, less rigid and more entertaining sources

(Baum, 2003b). For example, in the first week of July 2009, the circumstances of and detailed speculations about Michael Jackson’s sudden death dominated network news, while unrest in

China, in which hundreds of people died, or congressional negotiations of health care reform were only briefly mentioned. CNN, a channel initially devoted to traditional delivery of hard news is now considered by many to have abandoned its original purpose in favor of

“infotainment” (Anderson, 2004). What was originally CNN 2, that is, another outlet for 24-hour reporting of news, later became CNN Headline News and its formula and content began to shift toward entertaining fare. Now simply Headline News, its primetime lineup of shows is now anchored by entertainment news and gossip (Showbiz Tonight) and court reporting (Nancy

Grace). Observing this phenomenon, Stelter (2008) coined the term “viewers prefer views to news.” The trend toward softening the formats for news delivery is not unique to television and can be observed in many other sources of information.

Thus, there seems to be a clear need for research on why audiences move to select comedy versus conventional news programs and what the consequences of this move are. As

Baum (2003) suggested, a more detailed exploration of the nature, extent, and limitations of effects of soft news programming needs to be undertaken. Also, Fox, Koloen and Sahin (2007) stated a need for further examination of the differences between ways that viewers process the

8 information presented on conventional and non-traditional (comedy) newscasts. Such research would fall along the lines of Rubin’s (1984) recommendation that “we need to observe more directly the audience in the process of using television” (p. 76).

The purpose of this research, however, is not simply to car out an academic exercise.

How people acquire their knowledge of political facts and how they form their opinions about those facts is of utmost importance for the proper functioning of a democratic society. Research indicates that levels of political knowledge affect the acceptance of democratic principles, attitudes toward specific issues, and political participation in general (Galston, 2001).

Rationale for the Study

The Uses and Gratifications media effects perspective posits that audience characteristics are typically more influential in formulations of media effects than those of the media themselves. According to this perspective, what is important is what people do with the media rather than the other way around. During the past three decades, scholars working within the

U&G tradition have successfully completed a number of research projects concerning audiences of conventional television newscasts (hard news), investigating both national network news and local news programs. Viewer motivation and involvement with the news were frequently researched. For example, U&G researchers examined the role of audience activity (intentionality, selectivity and involvement) in the process of news consumption (Levy, 1977b; 1983; Levy &

Windahl, 1984; Rubin & Perse, 1987b). In other research, Perse (1990b) investigated cognitive and emotional dimensions of involvement with local television news. Also, Perse and Rubin

(1990) examined the influence of chronic loneliness on the viewing of local television news.

Applying qualitative research methods to the active audience premise of U&G, Massey (1995)

9 confirmed the pattern of temporal and qualitative aspects of audience activity. More recently,

Van den Bulck (2006) investigated news avoidance among young audiences.

U&G scholars also conducted research on programming that today could be categorized as soft news. For example, Rubin (1981b) investigated motives for viewing CBS’s 60 Minutes magazine. Haridakis (2002) and Haridakis & Rubin (2003) used selected infotainment types of programs (America’s Most Wanted, E! Mysteries & Scandals, and World’s Wildest Police

Videos) in their investigations of violence on television. Diddi and LaRose (2006) studied young audiences’ needs as predictors of patterns of news exposure in the contemporary media environment. The five main news acquisition patterns they observed were related to hometown newspapers, comedy news, cable news, Internet news, and broadcast news. In research on

Internet-based communication, but to a large degree influenced by television, Hanson and

Haridakis (2008) found that different motives predicted watching of different types of news- related content on YouTube.

According to the U&G perspective, different sets of socio-psychological factors lead to different media exposure patterns, which, in turn, lead to different outcomes (Rubin, 2009). This may be particularly true for differences between viewers’ motives for watching news on the one hand, and entertainment programming on the other. Exposure to news normally reflects what is frequently called an instrumental orientation on the part of the viewers, whereas exposure to entertainment is often a ritualistic one (Rubin, 1984). An instrumental viewing orientation refers to a goal-oriented use of media content and it “reflects active and purposive media behavior”

(Kim & Rubin, 1997, p. 112). Ritualistic orientation, on the other hand, applies to a largely habitual, less active use of the medium (Rubin, 1983; 1984). For example, Rubin (1981) found

10 that a viewer’s motivation to pass time (ritualistic orientation) is negatively correlated with viewing news and public affairs programming but positively correlated with viewing comedies.

In addition, different individual television viewing motives usually lead to different content choices. Thus, watching television to acquire information has been associated with news viewing (e.g. Rubin, 1983), whereas watching in order to be entertained has been found to be predicted by entertainment or pass time motives (e.g. Rubin, 1984). Hanson & Haridakis (2008) confirmed a similar pattern for watching traditional and comedy news programs on YouTube.

If these assumptions are correct, viewing conventional and comedy news should be predicted by different sets of motives and other antecedents. Furthermore, viewing conventional and comedy news should lead to different patterns of audience activity (including viewer involvement), and, finally, to different outcomes.

However, political communication scholarship regarding comedy news seems to be assuming that the outcomes of watching comedy news are very similar, if not the same as those of conventional news viewing. Scholars compared such outcomes as political self-efficacy (e.g.,

Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Holbert, Lambe, Dudo, & Carlton, 2007), or campaign knowledge

(e.g., Brewer & Cao, 2006; Hollander, 2005) across genres without much consideration given to possible differences in the way they were formed, or to their social and psychological predictors.

In fact, some researchers actually suggest considerable similarities between comedy and hard news programming, especially with regard to their content. For example, Fox, Koloen, & Sahin

(2007) posited that the amount of information presented on conventional and non-traditional

(comedy) news programs is practically the same. Also, Mutz (2001) advised that “the traditional distinctions between news and entertainment are no longer very helpful” (p. 231). Even if this is largely true, the specifics of content may not be the most important reason for choosing

11 particular programs, at least for some viewers. Whereas the general nature of content (serious versus funny) may play an important role in the choice of programming to watch, the U&G perspective suggests that viewers’ motives and socio-psychological circumstances play a significant role as well.

To recapitulate, according to U&G principles and research, there are reasons to expect that comedy and conventional news watching will be related to different socio-psychological antecedents, different patterns of exposure and levels of viewer activity (especially involvement), and will lead to different outcomes. However, some researchers suggest that certain outcomes of watching these two types of programming are, in fact, quite similar. These two views on the outcomes of conventional and comedy news seem to be at odds with each other and thus present a case for a side-by-side comparison in more detailed research.

The purpose of such a comparison would not necessarily be to prove one or the other view incorrect. One has to wonder whether some important aspects of this apparent discrepancy of views have not been overlooked. For example, situations may exist where both are correct in some aspects and incorrect in others. On the other hand, it is also possible that the processes and effects of viewing conventional and comedy news are neither completely different nor very much alike. An alternative to these two extremes could be that viewing these two genres is complementary. Indeed, as some research (e.g., Young & Tisinger, 2006) suggests, soft news programs do not replace traditional hard news but complement them. Holbert et al. (2007) argued that entertainment-type news shows influence how traditional news content is perceived and consumed by the public. An argument could be made that the opposite is even more likely; full involvement (especially cognitive involvement) in comedy news would be very difficult -- if at all possible -- without some prior exposure to the traditional, hard version of the same news.

Some support for such an argument can be found in the literature. For example, Feldman and

Young (2008) ascertained that viewers of comedy news seek out and pay more attention to network and cable (hard) news than non-viewers.

Another interesting and quite real possibility is that for certain audiences and in certain situations, comedy news, because of its frequently liberal stances on current issues (Coe et al.,

2008), may be more desirable and satisfy viewers’ political needs better than do traditional newscasts. Its popularity also could be a function of intergenerational trust, or, the scarcity thereof. A good example of such an occasion was the interview that Jon Stewart conducted with

CNBC’s financial commentator Jim Cramer, in which Stewart appeared more as a moral authority and a voice for the masses outraged by Wall Street’s excesses than as a comedian

(Daily Show, 2009). As Kakutani (2008) suggested, Stewart has become one of the most trusted and admired television personalities working today. His influence has even been compared to that of such icons of television news as Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite (Carter & Stelter,

2010). Many members of the generation from which the majority of Stewart’s audience is drawn openly express their distrust for traditional sources of information and increasing confidence in newer, decentralized sources such as the Internet (Seitz, 2008).

People’s choices of their sources of political information are based on individual, contextual, and structural factors (Althaus, Cizmar, & Gimpel, 2009). Many forces are at play in steering viewers toward conventional or comedy-based news programs. To take all of them into consideration would be a substantial undertaking, as the issue is not only very complicated but also constantly evolving. One can only hope to illuminate a selected segment of it.

In this study, I intended to shed some new light on the issue of differences between parody and conventional news consumption. I did it by probing the origins (antecedents) and

13 certain characteristics of audience involvement during exposure to both types of programming, and by examining selected media effects of this exposure.

Because U&G suggests that people’s demographic characteristics and psychological needs influence their motives to engage in specific communication processes, I began with demographic attributes of age and gender. Afterward, I explored the role of psychological characteristics, such as the need for cognition and political orientation (ideology). Both these factors have been linked to one commonly researched outcome of news viewing; that is, to political knowledge. According to U&G, all these factors should influence people’s motives for viewing, which I explored next. I then investigated the strength and the nature of involvement with conventional and comedy news. Because in previous U&G research viewing circumstances

(especially the presence of distractions) were found to influence viewer involvement, I also included one example of such circumstances (co-viewing) in my analysis. The examination culminated with an assessment of political knowledge and political self-efficacy as selected effects of news viewing.

By focusing on the relationships between factors influencing outcomes of viewing different genres of news, I hope to be able to contribute to better understanding of the role that comedy news plays in informing society in general and younger generations in particular.

Regardless of numerous differences between them, assorted newscasts provide their viewers with information that may or may not be useful in political processes of varying complexities and levels. News media in general foster participation in civic and political life of a country. Political outcomes of viewing television news (such as knowledge and self-efficacy) are thought to play an important role in a democratic society (Baum, 2003b; Moy, Xenos, & Hess, 2005). It is therefore equally important to study how these outcomes result from what Holbert et al. (2007)

14 call “the varied ways in which citizens use this influential form of mass communication” (p.

438).

On the ensuing pages, I will provide a brief description of basic tenets of the Uses and

Gratifications perspective, which served as a theoretical framework for this study. Next, I will review literature pertaining to research on comedy news programming. I will then examine research on the variables chosen for this project, and I will explain my choices. Next, I will propose a set of hypotheses and research questions, explain the procedure I followed for the study, present and discuss the results of statistical analysis. Lastly, I will summarize the study and propose directions for future research.

Theoretical Framework – Uses and Gratifications

The origins of Uses and Gratifications, or what McQuail and Windahl (1993) call its

“classical” period, can be traced to early research on gratifications consumers sought from radio and newspaper use (e.g. Berelson, 1949; Herzog, 1944), diverse functionalist approaches to media studies (e.g. Horton & Wohl, 1956; Lasswell, 1948; Wright, 1960), Katz’s (1959) theoretical work on the use people have for media in media effects processes, and Klapper’s

(1960, 1963) call for expansion of this line of research. The formulation of U&G’s basic tenets was achieved in the seminal work by Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1974). Specifically, these authors described the process of media consumption as originating in an individual’s social and psychological characteristics, which form a basis for various needs. Individuals expect that these needs will be gratified by mass media (or other sources). People’s expectations, in turn, lead to different patterns of media exposure (or to other activities). As a result of this exposure, the individual’s needs may be gratified, and other consequences can occur, some of which may be unintended.

Thus, U&G is a social and psychological perspective that emphasizes the active role of people in selecting media to fulfill their diverse needs. It focuses on explaining how and why people use media rather than how the media influence people (Klapper 1960). According to

Rubin (2009), U&G encompasses five underlying assumptions. First, people are active, goal- oriented, and motivated in the selection of their media. Second, people select and use different channels of communication to gratify their needs. Third, people exhibit diverse communication behaviors, which are influenced by social and psychological factors. Fourth, social and psychological circumstances influence how well media can serve and satisfy people’s needs.

Communication channels other than the media (functional alternatives) may be used to satisfy those needs. Lastly, people are usually, but not always, more influential than media, as far as patterns and consequences of media use are concerned.

U&G scholars focus on individuals rather than groups of communicators or the media, and the active nature of these individuals’ participation in the communication process is central to this perspective. Therefore, factors influencing the media selection process change according to each individual’s characteristics. Most of these characteristics are not isolated but operate in conjunction with other traits. Furthermore, rather than being static, they change over time (e.g.,

Rubin, 1983). As U&G scholars concentrated their efforts on issues concerning the individual’s role in media consumption, psychological involvement in acts of communication received a great deal of attention as well. Patterns of media exposure and its effects are closely intertwined with audience involvement with media and their content. The parasocial interaction phenomenon is a good example of this relationship (Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985). The character and intensity of such involvement provide an almost infinite array of configurations for scholarly investigation.

Some direction in this investigation has been provided by studies on factors leading to the formation of viewer involvement (antecedents of involvement). Several such antecedents have been identified in U&G over the course of the last three decades. For example, Levy and

Windahl (1985) listed several factors that influence audience activity, of which involvement is one of the main aspects. They include age, gender, intelligence, social class, and variations in content messages among others. Researchers also linked viewer motives, such as watching for information or for entertainment to audience activity and to involvement (e.g., Hanson &

Haridakis, 2008; Perse, 1990b; Rubin & Perse, 1987b). Van den Bulck (2006) proposed that structural antecedents of involvement should be considered in addition to factors traditional to

U&G (individual circumstances).

Levy and Windahl (1985) grouped the antecedents of involvement into three categories:

1) individual background variables, 2) social contingencies, and 3) media-related variables.

Similarly, Bae and Lee (2004) proposed that predictors of viewer involvement be grouped into individual, situational, and media-related categories. Scholars working in the field of consumer science also detected this pattern. For example, Warrington and Shim (2000) reviewed previous research and suggested that involvement results from three general factors: “(a) individual characteristics such as person’s needs, interests, values, and goals; (b) situational factors such as the purchase occasion or the perceived risk associated with the purchase decision; and (c) characteristics of the object or stimulus such as the type of communication media or variations within the product class” (p. 763). The fact that scholars in different fields of inquiry arrived at remarkably similar conclusions regarding the sources of involvement implies, in my opinion, certain reliability of the model they all constructed. Also, this pattern is intuitively very

17 appealing, and I believe it fits rather neatly into one of the basic premises of U&G. I used this approach in the present study as well.

U&G has seen its fair share of critical reviews (for discussion, see Biocca, 1988;

McQuail & Windahl, 1993; Schrøder, 1999). However, the relatively loose structure of this perspective allows its proponents to answer criticism either directly (by theoretical refinement utilizing different approaches), or indirectly (by corroborating theory with research findings).

Another reason for U&G’s resilience and continuing success in explaining media consumption is its focus on the individual consumer. It is the individual’s social and psychological traits, characteristics and circumstances that play the largest role in patterns of consumption and, ultimately, in the emergence of media effects (Rubin, 2009). U&G researchers identified various audience characteristics that may influence (negatively or positively) their motives for media consumption. Media motives, in turn -- partly because they influence selection of media and media fare -- have been shown to contribute to a variety of media effects. As noted earlier, television audiences, especially young ones, increasingly select comedy news as their program of choice.

Audience selection of and exposure to conventional news, as well as effects of such exposure have been thoroughly researched by scholars in a variety of disciplines, including communication and political science. Such research is widely available, and I refer to numerous examples of it throughout this study. However, a separate if brief section summarizing research on issues related to comedy news seems justified because of its relative novelty.

Comedy News Programing

Research pertaining to comedy news programming began only recently. This is somewhat surprising given that the origins of this genre date back to early to mid-1960s, when

BBC aired That Was the Week that Was (also known as TW3), a comedic weekly magazine featuring commentary on current events and British political personalities, anchored by David

Frost. After BBC cancelled the program because of fears of its undue political influence, an

American version was produced for a short period of time (1963-1964) by NBC. A Canadian version of parody news, called This Hour Has Seven Days ran for two years (1964-1966) before being cancelled. The same fate met similar programs in New Zealand and in Holland (MBC,

2008).

In 1975, NBC introduced Saturday Night Live, which featured a recurring segment of parody news called Weekend Update. The segment was patterned on the TW3, as well as on fake news sketches of NBC’s Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In (1968-1973), and CBC’s The Hart and

Lorne Terrific Hour (1970-71). Anchors of the Update changed several times over the years, but the basic formula of political satire in a fake television news setting continues to this day

(Reincheld, 2006).

The success of Weekend Update resulted in other broadcasting companies trying similar formulas for their programming lineups. Thus HBO had Not Necessarily the News, which ran from 1983 to 1990 (IMDb, 2008), and CBC is still producing This Hour Has 22 Minutes and The

Rick Mercer Report. Even Fox, in 2007, made an attempt at the parody news format with a show called The Half Hour News Hour, but it was a short-lived effort. Late-night talk show hosts routinely provide satirical news/commentary on daily affairs, oftentimes covering political figures and events (News Satire, 2009).

Comedy (fake, mock, parody, satire) news is not exclusive to television. It is a phenomenon that also is present on the Internet. Broadcasters’ own web pages contain video material, including news, which has been already aired. YouTube, one of the most popular sites

19 around, serves as a depository of news fragments that were originally presented on television.

Many portals and other sites also contain news clips, either original or copied from other sites.

Numerous more conventional Web sites in many countries are devoted to political humor. The president of The Onion, one of the most popular such websites in the US, aptly described the journalistic responsibility of the site: “If other fake news sources, like Fox News, are going after it, we have to respond” (News Satire, 2009). Other examples of Internet-based political parody news sites include The Satirical Political Report, The Spoof, Not the LA Times, and The Specious

Report.

The most successful parody news program on television has been The Daily Show with

Jon Stewart. Its offshoot, The Colbert Report, has also enjoyed considerable popularity.

Humorous and outrageous elements and techniques from these shows found their way into otherwise serious mainstream news programs, such as MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith

Olbermann, now discontinued.

A number of similarities exist between traditional newscasts and comedy news shows.

For example, the subject matter for the coverage is derived from the same wire sources. The material is written at the last possible moment, ensuring that it is fresh and up to date. The breaking news phenomenon applies to the comedy news genre as much as to the conventional newscasts (Reincheld, 2006). The general format, in which an anchor (or, sometimes, anchors), sitting behind a desk introduces a story that is illustrated by video material, which in turn is subject to further commentary, is also standard in both genres. Various reporters, correspondents, guests, and others often help with the task.

Research of soft news in general and comedy news in particular has included critical studies (e.g., Bennett, 2007; McKain, 2005), linguistic inquiries (e.g., Druick, 2009), content

20 analyses (e.g., Brewer & Marquardt, 2007), and quantitative investigations (e.g., Holbert et al.,

2007). Some controversy still exists as to the influence comedy news programs have on the viewers, and the value of their potential participation in the democratic process (Baumgartner &

Morris, 2006; Baym, 2005; Bennett, 2007; Feldman, 2007). Some research focused mainly on the size and characteristics of these programs’ audiences. In other studies, content was scrutinized for the amount of actual political information presented. Research also has been conducted on media effects, such as the amount of political knowledge attained by viewers.

Comprehensive analyses of the processes leading to the selection of these types of programs and of the actual act of their consumption are still lacking.

Political knowledge and political self-efficacy are two outcomes of viewing comedy news that have received considerable attention. Limited findings have been reported linking these variables to viewer background characteristics, such as age, gender, and political orientation, as well as to certain aspects/forms of need for cognition and viewer motives. I found no research on viewer involvement with comedy news. I will address this gap and review available literature pertaining to other variables on the following pages. This is important to do because U&G suggests audience activity in general and viewer involvement in particular exerts considerable influence of the formation of media effects.

Predictors of Television News Exposure

Rubin (2009) stated that “social and psychological factors guide, filter, or mediate communication behavior” (p. 167). These factors include our predispositions, the environment in which we live, and interpersonal relations in which we engage. All of these factors shape our expectations of the media and their content. All of them also influence our motives to engage in various communication behaviors. Ultimately, they all influence various outcomes of our

21 communications. It would be impossible to include all such factors in an analysis of the media consumption process, therefore only few, deemed representative, are regularly included in such studies.

For this study, I have chosen seven such factors, primarily because past research has linked these factors to the consumption of news. These seven factors also served as independent variables in hypotheses testing. They are age, gender, need for cognition, political ideology, viewer motives, co-viewing, and viewer involvement.

Age

Age of viewers often is considered as a control variable in studies of televised news viewership (e.g., Hanson & Haridakis, 2008; Perse, 1990b), perhaps because there is usually a fairly predictable and positive correlation between age and viewership of conventional news. For example, Rubin (1984) reported that increases in the age of viewers were related to increases in watching of news in general. He interpreted this finding by positing that age can help to explain instrumental television use, which in his study was defined primarily by the information-seeking motive for watching news. Of importance here is the finding that indicates a positive correlation between age and viewing news and other informational programming.

Rubin and Conway (1991) found age negatively correlated with ritualistic motives for watching television, and Perse (1990a) arrived at similar conclusions. Rubin (1981a) found that age was negatively associated with levels of four viewing motives that are commonly associated with entertainment programming: escapism, pass time, arousal, and social viewing. The younger the viewers, the more often they reported being moved to action by those four motives. Cooper and Tang (2009) found that age was a significant predictor of exposure to television, on par with the cost of access.

In the context of news viewership, past research suggests that age may deserve more attention than it is often given when treated as a simple control variable. Age clearly becomes an important contributing factor when it comes to news viewership. For example, Diddi and LaRose

(2006) pointed out that the time during which young people undergo political socialization -- when they graduate from high school and get their first chance to vote in national and local elections -- is also the time when lifetime news viewing patterns form. It is therefore rather important to study the ways these patterns develop, and perhaps even to aid in their development by encouraging news consumption from a young age.

That, however, may not be an easy task for television news. First of all, television in general is in a (not particularly successful) battle with newer media for young people’s attention

(Diddi & LaRose, 2006; Zogby Interactive, 2008). From 1995 and 2006 the number of 18- to 29- year-olds regularly watching local and network news dropped by more than 11% (Stempel &

Hargrove, 2008). Secondly, many young people do not develop a need for news consumption at all. For example, Van den Bulck (2006) reported that whereas about 28% of high school students reported that they were intentional news viewers, the same number identified themselves as intentional news avoiders.

Because young people reportedly consider comedy news programs as their main sources of political information (Baym, 2005; Pew, 2004), it is natural that scholars would attempt to describe what effects these programs have on their viewers. Thus, Hollander (2005) found that late-night and comedy news programming increased recognition of political campaign information among young viewers. Brewer and Cao (2006) ascertained that age is positively correlated with viewers’ political knowledge. Cao (2008) concluded that age and education had modest interactive effects with exposure on presidential campaign knowledge. Younger and

23 more educated viewers seem to benefit most in terms of the amount of campaign knowledge they acquire from exposure to political comedy programming. Young and Tisinger (2006) investigated the use of both conventional and comedy news by young viewers and found them to be positively correlated. They reported that young people appear to be learning equally from both news sources.

In spite of viewer age being potentially a rather interesting variable to consider, I opted to conform to the mainstream U&G tradition and treat it as a control variable rather then a contributing antecedent of exposure to news programming. The deciding factor in choosing this route was the nature of my intended sample, which did not promise enough variance in terms of age of participants.

Gender

Like age, gender is often considered a control variable in similar research endeavors (e.g.,

Hanson & Haridakis, 2008; Liu & Eveland, 2005). There are reasons, however, to treat it as a factor contributing to the development of viewer interest in, and the selection of comedy newscasts. For example, Cao (2008), Coe et al. (2008), and Hollander (2005), all found that males are more likely to watch comedy news than females. Hanson and Haridakis (2008) arrived at a similar conclusion with regard to watching comedy news videos on YouTube. As for conventional news, Van den Bulck (2006) reported than males tended to watch more television in general, but also more news in particular. Perse (1998) detected significant differences in the types of programs males and females were watching. Cooper and Tang (2009) reported that gender predicted exposure to television as well as instrumental motives. Haridakis (2006) researched motivation for viewing programs containing violence and found significant differences between the sexes as well.

Whereas controversy still exists about general gender differences in emotional and cognitive reaction to various stimuli, it is fair to say that such differences have been observed in some specific situations (Kimura, 2000). For example, Brewer and Cao (2006) reported that in their study of effects of watching parody news females exhibited a lower level of political knowledge than did their male counterparts. This finding corresponds with an earlier assertion that females appear to have a generally lower level of political knowledge than men (Garand,

Guynan, & Fouret, 2004; Liu & Eveland, 2005). Furthermore, Baumgartner and Morris (2006), in their study of effects of The Daily Show, reported that males exhibited greater self-efficacy than females.

There is some solid ground to link gender to political knowledge and self-efficacy.

However, many factors contributing to the formation of these outcomes have not been researched for gender differences. In general, research of gender differences in the process of selection and consumption of news is limited and fragmentary. Therefore, as in past U&G research, I treated gender as a control variable in this study.

Need for Cognition

In addition to age and gender, U&G suggests that social and psychological circumstances contribute to the formation of communication motives and selection of media and its fare. Need for cognition is one such factor that has been linked to the consumption of news.

According to Cacioppo and Petty (1982) and Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis (1996), individuals differ in their desire to engage in a cognitive activity and its enjoyment. This difference is due to a personal characteristic, which has been labeled the need for cognition

(Cohen, 1957). As Geers and Lassiter (2003) posited, individuals high in need for cognition seek out information and engage in thinking about it, whereas individuals low in need for cognition

25 tend to avoid such activities. They further asserted that individuals high in need for cognition engage in a detail-oriented form of analysis, whereas individuals low in need for cognition rely more on heuristics and less elaborate modes of analysis. Moreover, individuals high in need for cognition detect and remember more from a stimulus event than do those low in need for cognition. This finding also was confirmed by Liu and Eveland (2005), and its importance becomes apparent if one considers such effects of news viewing as, for example, political knowledge (learning), where the element of memory presumably plays a significant role.

Selected instances of recent research demonstrate the usefulness and appropriateness of using need for cognition in studies related to such media effects as political knowledge and learning. For example, Tidwell, Sadowski, and Pate (2000) investigated the relationships between need for cognition and political knowledge. They found that the correlation between these two variables was small but significant. Bizer, Krosnick, Holbrook, Petty, Rucker, and

Wheeler (2002) suggested that there are basic underlying personality constructs, such as the need for cognition and need to evaluate that can predict voter turnout. Bishop, Lariscy, English,

Sweetser, and Tinkham (2008) explored need for cognition in the context of political communication and found that it affected the manner in which participants processed information about political candidates. David (2005) suggested that those high in need for cognition might gain more political knowledge than those who are low in need for cognition, but with similar levels of exposure to certain television news programs. On the other hand, Liu and

Eveland (2005) found a weak correlation between need for cognition and knowledge acquired from television news (those with low initial knowledge benefit more than those with high level of knowledge, who presumably learn more from other sources).

Need for cognition has not been researched directly in the context of comedy news.

However, viewer education and level of political knowledge, found elsewhere to be correlated with need for cognition, do seem to play a role in the process of consumption of these types of programs. For example, Moy, Xenos, and Hess (2005) found that political sophisticates who watched late-night programming had heightened levels of political self-efficacy measured as an intent to vote and interpersonal political discussion. Cao (2008) proposed that education was positively correlated with political knowledge acquired from exposure to comedy news. In a study that investigated a reverse effect of comedy news and political knowledge, Young (2004) asserted that exposure to late-night political comedy is a function of political knowledge. On the other hand, Baek and Wojcieszak (2009) concluded that although late-night comedy increases political knowledge, it does so only on easy items and mainly among inattentive citizens.

Political Orientation

Another socio-psychological factor found to influence selection of news sources is political orientation, sometimes referred to as ideology. Some scholars also use a similar but technically different concept to assess political leanings of the populations they are studying. They simply establish political party identification of their respondents and call it partisanship (e.g. Baum,

3003a).

In the ideal world, all news would be perfectly objective in their coverage of people and events. However, the world we live in is not ideal, and preferences of all sorts guide our behavior on a daily basis. This includes political bias, to various degrees present in both the provider and the consumer of news. Scholars have studied both sides of this issue. Although I do not intend to study bias on the part of broadcasters, I will briefly mention representative research on this issue, because it received considerable attention in the recent years (especially with regard to comedy

27 news) and probably plays a substantial role in viewers’ selection of news outlets. For example,

Zedles, Fico, Carpenter, and Diddi (2008) performed a content analysis of network coverage of presidential candidates and concluded that it was generally balanced (with a possible exception of CBS, which leaned slightly left). On the other hand, Groeling (2008) found “substantial evidence for bias in the news choices” (p. 631) across the four big networks.

The notion of “liberal media” functioning among conservatives seems to be at odds with the fact that, according to some studies, between 1995 and 2006, the proportion of Democrats and Republicans watching local and network television news was completely reversed. Whereas in 1995 more Democrats than Republicans watched the news, in 2006 the proportion reversed, and it was Republicans who watched the news in greater numbers than Democrats (Stempel &

Hargrove, 2008). It is often assumed that comedy news programming is biased toward the left.

The reason for that opinion may be that such programs tend to poke fun at those in power, and for the last several years those in power in the U.S. were conservatives (Coe et al., 2008). In defense of the comedy news genre, some argue that programs like The Daily Show are simply guided by mistrust of all ideology and not by partisanship (Kakutani, 2008). However, according to some scholars, the liberal leanings of some parody newscasters, notably Jon Stewart, are often relatively easy to observe (Baym, 2005). On the other hand, Brewer and Marquardt (2007) concluded that comedy news is rarely ideological, because it focuses largely on personalities and not policies, and these types of programs use issue framing very infrequently.

Of interest for this study was how political orientation of the consumers of news influences their choices of specific outlets, how it interacts with other factors in the process of selection and consumption of news, and what role it may play in predicting news media outcomes. In addition to their own political orientation, viewers often perceive that news sources are biased in the

28 opposite direction to their own (even though they may not be) and make their media selections accordingly (Vallone et al., 1985). Researchers studying the influence that soft news programs have on the viewers usually take the viewers’ bias (and/or perception of bias on the part of the media) into consideration. Unfortunately, most of them use viewer partisanship only as a control variable, and not much about it works is reported.

Carney, Jost, Gosling, and Potter (2008) studied how personality traits influence people’s ideological profiles and found behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals to be significant. Their findings may suggest that it would not be unusual for conservatives and liberals to select different sources of news. This assertion was confirmed by Young (2004), who found that viewers’ ideology is a factor in determining exposure to late-night political comedy, with left-leaning viewers being more likely to watch these types of programs. Coe et al. (2008) analyzed national data to identify reasons that politically biased viewers chose their cable television news sources. According to these researchers, “partisan ideology was a substantial significant predictor of exposure in all the models” (p. 208). Coe and colleagues also found that cable news viewers are more likely to perceive bias in sources that are thought to espouse an ideology different from theirs. Dancey and Goren (2010) found that viewer partisanship affected attitudes about issues when those issues received substantial coverage on television news.

Viewer partisanship in the context of comedy news has been assessed in many different ways, although all seem to be based on some form of a progressive-conservative continuum.

Some researchers distinguish between political party identification and party intensity

(Baumgartner & Morris, 2006), or party identification and political ideology (Moy, Xenos, &

Hess, 2005; Young & Tisinger, 2006). Others measure only dichotomous party identification

(Baum, 2003a; Brewer & Cao, 2006; Cao & Brewer, 2008). Young (2004) used a measure that

29 included the two traditional party identifications as well as the independent one, and suggested that partisanship is traditionally correlated with political knowledge.

Viewer Motives

U&G scholars devoted considerable time and effort to investigate the nature and role of viewer motives in the process of media/program selection. Early research into viewing motives, sometimes also called “gratifications sought,” concentrated on viewer typologies and exploration of possible links between patterns of media usage and its consequences (e.g., Gutman, 1978;

McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972). Greenberg (1974) identified seven viewing motives for younger audiences: habit, relaxation, companionship, passing time, learning, arousal, and escape.

Rubin (1979) found only six motives for a similar sample of young viewers (passing time and habit functioned as one motive). Palmgreen & Rayburn (1979) identified seven motives in their study of public television viewing: relaxing, learning, communication utility, forgetting, passing time, companionship, and entertainment.

Drawing on previous research (Greenberg, 1974, Rubin 1979), Rubin (1981a) investigated the reasons people have for viewing television and came up with a comprehensive list of nine such motives. They included pass time, companionship, arousal, content, relaxation, information, escape, entertainment, and social interaction. He found that viewing to pass time motivation was positively correlated with comedy shows and negatively correlated with news programming. The only other motives significantly related to these genres were relaxation

(positively related to comedy), and social viewing (negatively related to news). This finding suggests that the selection of these two genres may be based on different motives.

Rubin (1981b) investigated viewers’ motives for watching the 60 Minutes television news magazine, which by contemporary standards, could be considered as belonging to the

30 broadly defined soft news genre. One of his most important findings was that viewers of this program did not watch it primarily to seek information, but instead were moved by a host of different motives that included arousal and excitement. These motives are more commonly associated with entertainment programming rather than with news.

Rubin (1983) set out to explore the possibility that motives are an aspect of distinct television viewing patterns (and therefore could be used for the prediction of future viewing behavior) that correspond to the habitual/non-habitual viewer types. He found two such distinct patterns: time consumption and entertainment on the one hand (which characterizes a habitual viewing pattern), and non-escapist information seeking on the other (non-habitual viewing pattern). Rubin (1984) expanded on this finding, as well as on Windahl’s (1981) notion of ritualized and instrumental television viewing. He concluded that ritualized viewing is habitual, frequent, and characterized by an affinity for the medium, whereas instrumental viewing is purposeful, selective, and indicates an affinity for specific programming rather than for the medium. Watching the news is most often associated with instrumental viewing, whereas watching entertainment programming often has the characteristics of ritualized viewing.

Rubin, Perse, & Powell (1985) investigated motives for watching local television news.

The results of their study confirmed previous findings on instrumental and ritualized viewing orientations as well as on television news consumption and effects (e.g., parasocial interaction with favorite newscasters). Similarly, Rubin & Perse (1987b) found that instrumental viewing motives for watching local news fare positively related to news realism and affinity, as well as to intentionality and involvement. For example, the information-seeking motive was a strong positive predictor of intentionality (pre-involvement) and cognitive involvement, while watching for passing time was a negative predictor of these aspects of involvement.

Several researchers considered links between the strength of viewing motivations and involvement. For example, Rubin and Perse (1987a) found that cognitive involvement with soap operas was positively related to entertainment and social utility motives. Garramone (1983) linked viewing motivation to attention and emotional involvement with network television news.

Lemish (1985) observed that viewers with strong entertainment motivation reacted emotionally to soap opera programming.

Utilizing Schramm’s (1949) description of reasons for watching various forms of local television news for either information or entertainment purposes, Perse (1990b) set out to investigate how different motives are related to different aspects of involvement with news viewing. She concluded that utilitarian motives were associated with higher cognitive involvement and with the negative aspect of affective involvement (anger), while diversionary motives were correlated with the positive aspect of affective involvement (happiness). Therefore, motives can influence not only the level and aspect/kind of involvement (cognitive vs. affective), but also the orientation of affective involvement (positive vs. negative).

In the newer research of viewer motivation, Hanson and Haridakis (2008) compared motives people have for watching conventional and comedy news videos on YouTube, and found that information-seeking motivation predicted watching conventional news videos, whereas leisure entertainment led to watching comedy news videos. Even though their research concerned the use of the Internet rather than television, the video content was originally presented on television, and it seems reasonable to surmise that their findings would apply to television viewing as well.

Over the years researchers extracted several different motives for watching television programming. Nevertheless, some of those motives seem to be present in all situations,

32 regardless of the nature of viewing (instrumental or ritualized), the viewing circumstances, or the genre being viewed. Two of those, the information-seeking motive and the entertainment motive logically correspond to the two genres of news that were explored in this study.

Co-Viewing

One of the tenets of U&G is that people's social circumstances influence their media use.

These circumstances include the viewing environment. Researchers have studied such environmental issues as presence of distractions (e.g., Levy & Windahl, 1984), talking about program content with other people (e.g., Rubin & Perse, 1987a), or family-viewing environment

(e.g., Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters & Marseille, 1999). All these issues are often present in group-viewing situations.

According to Zajonc's (1965) drive theory of social facilitation, the presence of other audience members has a significant effect on people's responses to communications, including media messages. The theory posits that even the “mere presence” of others increases one’s level of arousal, and thus strengthens the likelihood of some (habitual) and hampers the learning of other (new) responses. Similarly, U&G researchers found co-viewing distractions to be negatively correlated with news affinity (Rubin & Perse, 1987b). Research on consensus heuristics, that is, a postulate that a presence of others may influence a person's reaction to persuasive communication is also well established (e.g., Axsom, Yates, & Chaiken, 1987;

Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Situational factors, such as watching alone or with others, are thought to exert significant influence on viewer involvement (Bae & Lee, 2004). In general, social uses of television, including group viewing, are some of the most important functions television serves (Lull, 1980). Taking one of the basic premises of U&G theory of media effects, that is, that people are typically (albeit not always) more influential in the process

33 of media effect formation than the media themselves or messages transmitted by them (Rubin,

2009), the suitability of using the co-viewing variable in research on possible outcomes of television news programming becomes apparent.

The viewing of television in groups, often referred to as co-viewing, has received considerable attention from communication scholars. Probably the most researched part of this phenomenon concerns watching television in family settings, and especially the problem of parental control and mediation (e.g., Austin, 1993; Austin, Roberts, & Nass, 1990; Valkenburg et al., 1999). Another interesting area of viewing television in groups that has received attention from communication scholars concerns watching television in public and in semi-public places.

Especially interesting are situations where the viewing group could be considered a "surrogate" family (e.g., Lemish, 1985; Rubin, 1985); these include the armed services, summer camps, college dormitories, etc. These are often situations where young people are watching together, and where learning can occur, that is, situations where primary audiences for parody news programs may be present. Indeed, as Rubin (1981a) reported, there seems to be a direct

(negative) correlation between the age of the viewers and their desire to engage in social viewing. The social interaction motive is recognized by U&G scholars as one of the most commonly cited motives for engaging in the viewing of television.

Haridakis and Hanson (2009) noted that "researchers have long recognized that people use media such as television to have something to do with friends and family members" (p. 330).

Applying this supposition to viewing video on YouTube, these authors found that co-viewing was one of the most important motives for viewing and sharing such material. In related research, Weintraub and Pinkleton (2001) concluded that news viewing and co-viewing can have indirect positive effects on the political socialization of children. Ducheneaut, Moore, Oehlberg,

Thomton, & Nickell (2008) demonstrated that people enjoy watching television as part of socializing in groups. In addition, Cao (2008) suggested that viewing political comedy shows could foster political participation by building an imagined community among viewers.

Co-viewing has been linked to television news in research on parental mediation. For example, Buijzen, Van der Molen, & Sondij (2007) found that children whose parents helped them understand the news had a less negative emotional response to the information presented in them than those that did not have parents present when they watched. This effect was detectable regardless of the age of children.

Viewer Involvement

In the Uses and Gratifications tradition, viewer involvement is an aspect of audience activity. However, as Perse (1990b) put it, audience activity research “has not conceptualized involvement consistently” (p. 557). The bulk of U&G conceptual work on involvement was done in 1980s and early 1990s, with later research becoming less frequent and relying on previously established definitions.

The concept of involvement was first introduced by Levy (1977a, 1977b) as sort of a synonym for the term audience “activeness” itself. Levy (1977a) did not provide a definition of involvement but instead suggested that the “most direct” measure of viewer involvement is the amount of time spent on viewing. He later proposed that viewer involvement could be explained using the “information-processing perspective” (Levy, 1983, p. 110). The main course of action in which involved viewers engage is a process of providing meaning to messages. Levy also proposed that involvement has cognitive and affective dimensions. He reiterated Schramm’s

(1971) proposition that involvement is “an important precondition for many mass media effects”

(p. 111).

Levy and Windahl (1984) introduced a temporal element to the concept of audience activity, which consisted of pre-, during, and post-viewing phases. They understood involvement as a process related to providing messages with meanings -- a process that included not only decoding and interpreting messages, but also thinking about these messages or talking to co- viewers about them. The results of their study confirmed that viewers are not uniformly active and that levels of audience activity, including involvement, are directly correlated with gratifications sought and/or obtained.

Levy and Windahl (1985) listed several possible factors influencing the magnitude of involvement. Gratifications sought, or motives, were thought to cause the biggest differences in the level of involvement. As for the outcomes of viewer involvement, the authors suggested that audience activity in general, and involvement in particular, leads to higher levels of gratifications obtained.

Rubin and Perse (1987b) supported the notion of cognitive, affective, and behavioral manifestations of involvement. Similar to Levy and Windahl (1985), they operationalized involvement as a reflection of the number of distracting behaviors viewers engage in while watching television. Rubin and Perse (1987a) argued that involvement has two meanings in communication research. First, it is seen as “a precommunication condition,” and “a motivational state linked to strength and centrality of preexisting attitudes” (p. 247). Second, involvement is seen as a “’direct personal experience’ during message reception” (p. 247). It indicates cognitive, affective, and behavioral participation. Rubin and Perse cited parasocial interaction as an example of affective involvement. According to these researchers, cognitive involvement manifests itself in thinking about messages, or in elaboration. Behavioral involvement was exemplified by discussions about messages viewers have with other people.

Perse (1990b) reached out to consumer science research and reiterated Greenwald and

Leavitt’s (1984) notion of different levels of (cognitive) involvement. According to those authors, involvement first manifests itself as preattention, which includes sensory buffering and evaluation of basic features of the message. The other three levels are focal attention

(deciphering the codes included in messages), comprehension (analysis of text and construction of meaning), and elaboration (integration of message content with existing knowledge).

Rubin (1981b) made a connection between viewing soft news programming and emotional involvement (arousal and excitement). Extending this line of research, Perse (1998) made several interesting observations concerning viewer involvement. For example, she reported that cognitive involvement was higher for news viewing than for watching entertainment- oriented programming. The level of positive affective involvement (e.g., amusement, happiness, satisfaction, etc.), however, was lower for news than for entertainment programming, while the level of negative affective involvement (e.g., anger, boredom, embarrassment, etc.) was higher.

Most contemporary research on viewer involvement within U&G tends to employ conceptualizations of this phenomenon found in earlier research and described in the preceding paragraphs. Usually, only minor changes, additions, and clarifications are introduced. For example, Sood (2002) operationalized involvement as consisting of cognitive (“reflection”) and affective (“parasocial interaction”) components. She found that higher listener involvement in educational programming leads to increased self-efficacy. Hawkins, Pingree and their colleagues

(Hawkins, Pingree, Bruce, & Tapper, 1997; Hawkins et al., 2002) focused on cognitive involvement, specifically on attention. Diddi and LaRose (2006) suggested that the U&G understanding of engagement with news programming should be applied only to the initial stage

37 of such engagement (selection of sources), and habit should be considered more important during subsequent stages (regular patterns of consumption).

In summary, involvement is a psychological concept, indicating some level of psychological interaction between the viewer and media messages (Levy & Windahl, 1985), that reflects participation, attention, and emotion (Rubin 1993). As a component of audience activity, involvement is characterized by variability, depending on temporal, individual, programming, and structural factors. Involvement consists of cognitive, affective, and, possibly, behavioral aspects. The cognitive aspect operates on many levels of consciousness, and manifests itself in attention to, elaboration, and comprehension of messages (Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984; Perse,

1990b).

Therefore, involvement is, in my opinion, the most crucial aspect of the viewing process.

Research suggests that the level of involvement is strongly linked to various predictors, especially to motives (e.g. Perse, 1998; Rubin, 1981b), and to media effects (e.g. Patwardhan,

2004; Sood, 2002).

Effects of Television News Exposure

The two most commonly studied effects of comedy news viewing in the newest literature on this subject are political self-efficacy and political knowledge (e.g., Baumgartner & Morris,

2006; Brewer & Cao, 2006; Brewer & Marquardt, 2007; Young, 2006). Both have a long tradition of being studied in the context of news and/or other instances of political communication.

Political Self-Efficacy

The term political self-efficacy refers to the sense of being able to cope with the political system (Newhagen, 1994). Sometimes referred to as internal political self-efficacy, it concerns

“beliefs about one’s own competence to understand and to participate effectively in politics”

(Niemi, Craig, & Mattei, 1991, p. 1407). Political self-efficacy is often conceptualized (and measured) as a latent variable that is composed of two observable dimensions: perceived competence and perceived effectiveness. According to Holbert et al. (2007), “the competence dimension concerns whether citizens believe they have the ability to understand the major political issues of the day, and the latter dimension focuses on whether voters feel their actions matter in terms of how political decisions are made” (p. 27).

Brewer and Marquardt (2007) found that The Daily Show encourages viewers to think critically about political matters. Similarly, Cao and Brewer (2008) reported that exposure to political comedy shows was positively associated with such forms of political participation as attending an event and joining an organization. These findings become relevant to this study in light of Verba, Schlozman, & Brady’s (1995) assertion that political efficacy influences certain forms of political participation, such as attending events or joining an organization.

Baumgartner and Morris (2006) found that viewers of The Daily Show have increased political self-efficacy (indicating an ability to understand political processes). In spite of this, these researchers caution that certain negative effects, such as cynicism toward the political system that Jon Stewart’s show may have on its audiences could be easily overlooked in the general euphoria about its positive contributions to journalism, and to young people’s participation in political processes.

Moy and her colleagues (2005) found that exposure to political comedy shows was positively related to intentions to vote, campaign participation, and political discussion.

Watching such programming, according to these authors, can enhance political engagement, but not for all sectors of the electorate and not all the time. Exposure to late-night comedy was

39 associated with increased levels of participation in the political process. Although political self- efficacy and participation in political processes are two different concepts, there exists a strong link between them in the sense that participation is usually precipitated by higher levels of self- efficacy (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). Vecchione and Caprara (2009) linked personality traits to political self-efficacy and participation. Cao (2008) hypothesized and confirmed that exposure to political comedy shows fosters increased political participation among viewers of these programs. Holbert et al. (2007) concluded that The Daily Show’s primacy effect on the political gratifications associated with national television news viewing was isolated among those participants who retain low internal political self-efficacy.

Political Knowledge

According to Mondak (1999), political knowledge is a central concept and a fundamental variable in political behavior research. Scholars are striving to explain variance in citizens’ level of knowledge about politicians and politics and to understand the consequences of such differences for political participation.

The study of political knowledge has drawn considerable scholarly attention over the years. Scholars have investigated levels of political knowledge in society, debated political knowledge measurement methods and interpretation, and built models to explain individual levels of political knowledge (Garand, Guynan, & Fournet, 2004). Whereas attitudes towards politicians and political issues are at the crux of polling procedures and political science research, scholars are paying increasing attention to the cognitions underlying those attitudes.

The most basic of these cognitions concern political facts, which taken together, form political knowledge (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1993).

According to Larcinese (2005), political knowledge has a sizeable influence on the probability of voting. Mass media, including television news, play an important role in increasing political knowledge, and thus in influencing political participation. For example, Moy,

Xenos, and Hess (2005) found that political sophisticates (that is, politically knowledgeable people) who watched late-night programming had heightened levels of intent to vote and interpersonal political discussion, both considered indicators of political self-efficacy.

Political knowledge is probably the most widely considered media effect of watching comedy-based news. On the most basic level, political knowledge has been linked to exposure to comedy news. In the early research of soft news phenomenon, Chaffee, Zhao and Leshner (1994) revealed that audience learning from television talk shows contributes to the basic political knowledge acquired from conventional sources, like newspapers and network news. Hollander

(2005) found support for his contention that exposure to late-night political comedy shows increased recognition (but not recall) of campaign knowledge among viewers.

Young (2006) examined the issue of salience of political candidates’ caricatured traits among viewers of late-night comedy programming. He found that for political sophisticates, such caricatures are important and play a significant role in moderating political knowledge. Brewer and Cao (2006) compared the amount of knowledge attained by viewers of late-night and political comedy shows, morning shows, and news magazines. Their results indicated that late- night and political comedy shows foster greater knowledge acquisition than news magazines and morning shows. Also, Brewer and Marquardt (2007) suggested that The Daily Show may have a positive influence on viewers’ attention to and knowledge of political information.

Baum (2002, 2003b) concluded that exposure to soft news media fostered public attention to world affairs among otherwise politically unengaged citizens. Brewer and Cao

(2006) found that exposure to candidates for political office appearing on soft news programming increases the viewers’ knowledge about election campaigns. Cao (2008) reported that the younger and the more educated that viewers of comedy news are, the more political knowledge they acquire as a result of watching those programs. Brewer and Marquardt (2006) posited that The Daily Show has a potential to educate its viewers about politics and draw their attention to world affairs. Baek and Wojcieszak (2009) concluded that late-night comedy increases political knowledge, albeit on easy items and mainly among inattentive citizens.

Political knowledge also has been studied in the context of conventional news, including by U&G researchers. For example, Vincent and Basil (1997) linked surveillance motives to increased exposure with news, but found increases in political knowledge to depend on different modes of delivery of such news. Diddi and LaRose (2006) arrived at similar conclusions; they reported that only consumption of local newspaper and other specialty (depth) sources increased knowledge of current events. Weaver and Drew (2001) compared the impact of various news media (television, newspapers, Internet) on political knowledge and confirmed the importance of conventional TV news. Also, Shen and Eveland (2010) reported that when audio-visual forms of news delivery were the only modes available, increases in political knowledge were subject to a law of diminishing returns. Only when combined with print news sources, did the use of audio- visual forms result in observable increases in political knowledge.

Clearly, the role of various factors in the process of news consumption on this outcome variable is well established. Together with self-efficacy, political knowledge forms a tandem of very good indicators of political participation of citizens, which is one of the most important goals of democracy.

The News Viewing Process Model

A visual representation of the U&G-based model of the viewing process for conventional

and comedy news programs, as described in literature review, is presented in Figure 1. The

model is necessarily simplified for the purpose of guiding the conceptualization and the

formulation of hypotheses and research questions for this study. In reality, many more variables

operate than the ones included in the model.

Need For Cognition

Political Exposure Knowledge

Age

Cognitive Involvement Motives Affective Involvement

Gender

Co-viewing Political Self- Efficacy

Ideology

Figure 1. Television Viewing Process Model (Possible direct links between antecedents of involvement and effect variables have been omitted for the sake of clarity).

Hypotheses and Research Questions

This study was designed to answer questions of relative contributions of several variables

in the news viewing process in explaining political knowledge and political self-efficacy. A

general idea, supported by many studies conducted over the years by U&G researchers, was that

43 individual differences would influence motives for viewing, which, in turn, and along viewing context (co-viewing) and media-related variables (exposure to different genres), would affect viewer involvement with news programming. Viewer involvement, then, would exert influence on media effects. In other words, I intended to be able to tell whether there are differences in the following three phases of viewing conventional and parody news: a) the process of selection of a specific type of program (antecedents of involvement), b) the type (cognitive and affective) and the level of viewer involvement during the actual act of watching these programs on television, and c) the effects (political self-efficacy and political knowledge) that watching the news may have on the viewers.

In order to achieve this objective, I intend, first, to test and fine tune the model presented in Figure 1. Testing hypotheses and answering research questions pertaining to relationships between individual components of the model, as suggested by U&G, will help to accomplish this task. Secondly, to test the overall hypothesis, I will examine how relevant differences in exposure influence outcome variables in the model.

Specific research on variables chosen for this study varies in terms of extent. Some variables, most notably viewer motivations, have been thoroughly researched, and their interdependence with a host of other variables is either fairly well-established, or can be logically deduced. Relationships between other variables, such as ideology and affective involvement, are less well known, and hypotheses about them were difficult to formulate. In those instances, research questions were posed instead.

The order of presentation of individual hypotheses was informed by the succession of variables in the viewing process model suggested by the U&G framework. Socio-psychological variables (age, gender, needs and attitudes) are at the starting point, followed by motives,

44 followed by circumstances (viewing alone vs. co-viewing) and media-related variables of news viewing (conventional vs. comedy news), then involvement, and concluding with the media effects variables.

Rubin (1984) found that the age of viewers was positively related to increases in watching of conventional news programs. This finding was confirmed later with respect to local news viewing (Perse, 1990b). A negative correlation between age and viewing of comedy news is also well established (Baym, 2005; Pew, 2004). Although there is probably a direct route of influence between age and exposure, it is not by any means automatic. In fact, U&G suggests that an indirect route, that is, through needs, motives, and probably other psychological variables, is more likely. In addition, the expected homogeneity of the sample for this study (college students, mostly freshmen) would not provide enough variance to attempt any generalizations of possible findings related to age. For these and other reasons mentioned in the Literature Review section, I will not test for the direct relationship between age and exposure to both conventional and comedy news. Instead, and consistently with past U&G research, I used age as a control variable only.

Gender appears to be a factor in certain viewing patterns and choices. For example, Perse

(1998) reported that males and females differed significantly in the genres of programs that they were watching. Also, Haridakis (2006) reported gender differences in viewing motives for violent television fare. There is also some limited evidence in political science research that gender may be related to political ideology. Females, at least recently, and at least in the US, are more likely to identify themselves as liberal, and support leftist causes (Cameron & Lalonde,

2001; King & Matland, 2003). However, research on the influence gender may have on the

45 process of viewing news programming is still limited. In this study, gender was treated only as a control variable, as was age.

Political orientation, or, ideology, has been linked to comedy and other forms of soft news programming in past research. For example, Coe et al. (2008) reported that liberals are more likely to watch The Daily Show than conservatives, while Moy, Xenos and Hess (2005) found that conservatives are less likely to watch late-night comedy. Past research (e.g., Rubin

1981; 1984) also resulted in linking of specific motives and genres of programing (news vs. entertainment). In light of these findings, I put forth the following hypothesis:

H1: Liberal political orientation will be positively related to viewing news for

entertainment motives.

I found no research to support any predictions about the relationship between political orientation and information-seeking motives. Therefore, I asked the following research question:

RQ1: What is the relationship between political orientation and information-seeking

motives?

Research on how the need for cognition fits with the news viewing process is limited.

Only the relationship between need for cognition and political knowledge is relatively well researched. For example, Brewer and Cao (2006) studied political interest (which is a form of need for cognition), and its influence on political knowledge and found that relationship to be positive. Similarly, Tidwell, Sadowski, and Pate (2000) reported a small but significant positive correlation between need for cognition and political knowledge. Because knowledge is usually associated with the motivation to acquire it, one can logically surmise a connection between need for cognition and information seeking. Also, Cacioppo et al. (1996) stated that individuals who

46 are high in need for cognition “naturally tend to seek out, acquire, think about, and reflect back on information to make sense of stimuli” (p. 198). Therefore, I proposed the following:

H2: Need for cognition will be positively related to viewing news for informational

motives.

The relationship between need for cognition and watching news to be entertained is not as obvious. Therefore, because no known research has yet tackled this issue, the following research question was asked:

RQ2: What is the relationship between need for cognition and viewing news for

entertainment motives?

As for the relationship between motives and conventional news viewing, Rubin (1984) found positive associations between watching television for information purposes and viewing of news, news magazines, and documentary programs. In Rubin and Perse’s (1987b) study, the information-seeking motive was positively related to affinity (that is, liking) for conventional news. Therefore, the following hypothesis was tested:

H3a: Watching for information will be positively related to more frequent conventional

news viewing.

Perse (1990b), who considered entertainment to be a diversionary motive, found partial support for Schramm’s (1949) suggestion that diversionary viewing motives lead to viewing sensational stories. In Rubin’s (1981) study, entertainment motives were positively related to the viewing of 60 Minutes (soft news). Therefore, I proposed:

H3b: Watching for entertainment will be positively related to more frequent comedy

news viewing.

The relationships between viewer motivations and co-viewing have received surprisingly little attention from communication scholars. However, some have suggested that viewing sports on television (entertainment, along with social utility, is a common motive for watching sports), that is, viewing for entertainment, may lead to watching in groups (e.g., Gantz & Wenner, 1995).

Therefore, the following hypothesis was put forth:

H3c: Watching news to be entertained will be positively related to co-viewing.

Because no suitable research was found that would link information-seeking motives and co-viewing, the following research question was asked to explore the relationship between these variables:

RQ3: What is the relationship between watching news for information and co-viewing?

Rubin and Perse (1987b) found a strong link between conventional news viewing and cognitive involvement. Additionally, respondents in Perse’s (1998) study reported more cognitive involvement with news programs than with sitcoms. Therefore, the following was hypothesized:

H4: Conventional news viewing will be positively related to cognitive involvement.

As for the relationship of conventional news viewing and affective involvement, Perse

(1998) reported that viewing of conventional news resulted in lower levels of positive affective involvement (e.g., satisfaction, happiness, etc.) and higher levels of negative affective involvement (e.g., anger, boredom, etc.) than did viewing of entertainment programing. Because my intention is to probe only the strength of affective involvement, without regard for its direction (positive vs. negative), I did not hypothesize on this relationship and instead posed the following research question:

RQ4a: What is the relationship between conventional news viewing and affective

involvement?

Research of links between comedy news viewing and involvement is currently lacking.

Zillmann’s (1988) mood management theory, which posits that the selection and consumption of messages, particularly entertaining messages, is capable of altering a person’s mood states, may become a useful framework for explaining some aspects of this issue. However, at this time there is not enough solid evidence to allow for the formulation of hypotheses. Therefore, the following research questions were asked:

RQ4b: What is the relationship between comedy news viewing and cognitive

involvement?

RQ4c: What is the relationship between comedy news viewing and affective

involvement?

Furthermore, no suitable research was found in the literature, in which the relationship between co-viewing and involvement with various genres of television news would be explored.

Some ethnographic research on the subject (e.g., Lemish, 1985) suggests that emotional involvement increases while watching television soap operas in groups. Therefore two research questions were asked:

RQ5a: What is the relationship between co-viewing and cognitive involvement?

RQ5b: What is the relationship between co-viewing and affective involvement?

And lastly, a number of researchers suggested various relationships between viewing of conventional and parody news on the one hand and political knowledge and self-efficacy on the other. For example, viewing of conventional news was linked to moderate increases in political knowledge (e.g., Althouse & Tewksbury, 2000; Atkin & Gantz, 1978). The consensus among

49 political communication scholars seems to be building on the side of those who propose that parody news can have positive effect on political self-efficacy and political knowledge (e.g.,

Baumgartner & Morris, 2008; Cao, 2008). However, all this research tells us is that there is a connection between exposure to television programing and media effects, without trying to explain or even to describe this connection. The U&G-inspired model tested in this study could provide at least one such explanation, that is, that involvement in the news being viewed is what really causes media news effects to occur. At least partial descriptions of the relationship between involvement and media effects were to be obtained from answers to the following research questions:

RQ6a: What is the relationship between cognitive involvement and political knowledge?

RQ6b: What is the relationship between cognitive involvement and political self-

efficacy?

RQ6c: What is the relationship between affective involvement and political knowledge?

RQ6d: What is the relationship between affective involvement and political self-efficacy?

The overall purpose of this study is to compare the processes of selection, consumption, and media effects of conventional and comedy news. Even though U&G suggests that these processes should be different, the available empirical evidence is rather contradictory and therefore does not allow to predict such an outcome with any degree of certainty. Therefore, I proposed the following general research question:

RQ7: Depending on the type of exposure, how similar or different are the contributions

of age, gender, ideology, need for cognition, viewer motives, co-viewing, cognitive

involvement and affective involvement to the formation of political knowledge and

political self-efficacy?

To summarize this section, viewing of conventional and parody news programs is seen here as a process involving several social, psychological, situational, and media-related variables that influence viewers’ motivations and involvement with these types of programs, as ultimately their effects. Some of these variables have been researched in similar context in the past, and their contribution to the process can be hypothesized. The amount of available information on other such variables is not sufficient enough to predict their functioning, therefore research questions were asked with the hope of providing certain initial illumination of this issue.

Chapter II

METHODOLOGY

In the previous chapter, I proposed a U&G-based model of the influence of the television news viewing process on certain media effects. It suggested a pattern of influence certain viewer characteristics, news-viewing motives, as well as viewing context (co-viewing), type of exposure

(conventional news viewing vs. comedy news viewing), and viewer involvement with news may have on viewers’ political knowledge and political self-efficacy. In this section, I will describe the methodology I used in my study.

A typical investigation in the Uses and Gratifications research tradition, the theoretical perspective underlying this study, utilizes survey-based methodology. This is an economical and efficient technique for collecting data from larger groups of participants. Therefore, a survey was created for this study, designed to measure (1) demographics (age, gender) (see Appendix B), (2) ideology (see Appendix C), (3) need for cognition (see Appendix D), (4) viewer motives (see

Appendix E), (5) exposure to conventional and comedy news (see Appendix F), (6) co-viewing

(see Appendix G), (7) cognitive involvement (see Appendix H), (8) affective involvement (see

Appendix I), (9) political knowledge (see Appendix J), and (10) political self-efficacy (see

Appendix K). Viewer motives, co-viewing, and cognitive and affective involvement were measured twice, once each for viewing conventional and comedy news.

The number of participants needed for this study was determined using a formula calling for least 10 participants per item of the largest instrument subject to factor analysis. Rubin’s

(1983) Television Viewing Motives Scale, which contains 27 items, was such an instrument.

Thus a minimum of 270 participants was needed. In order to simplify data collection, I decided to administer the survey online. Such a method offers participants a convenient and relatively

52 effortless way to take part in a research project. The survey was administered using Qualtrics, an

Internet-based survey management company.

Sampling Procedure

Data for this study was collected from undergraduate students at Kent State University who were at least 18 years old and watched television. Students who completed the survey (N =

401) were enrolled in an introductory communication class and received credit for their effort.

Student samples have been used in numerous studies on television viewing. Pingree et al.,

(2001) cited several reasons for the contention that college students are an important group from which to draw samples for studies of television viewing activity. According to these authors, students are less constrained by programming schedules because of the relative availability associated with their lifestyles. They also have more opportunities than the general population to interact and share interests with their peers, which makes them more likely to watch television in groups and interact while viewing. In addition, by virtue of being a relatively homogeneous social group, college students may form shared attitudes toward television programs and issues contained in those programs. Given these reasons, Pingree and her colleagues suggested that students are “likely to be more selective and active television viewers than the general population or even non-students of the same age” (p. 450).

Another important reason for relying on a college student sample for this study was the fact that it is young, college-age people who make up the majority of comedy news viewers

(Baym, 2005; Pew, 2004)). Although young people watch less conventional news than do older viewers, they still form a substantial slice of the audience for this news genre. Stempel and

Hargrove’s (2008) found that about 50% of 18- to 29-year olds in their sample regularly watched local or network news. Also, college students are probably more likely than the general

53 population to watch television in groups (e.g., Lemish, 1985; Rubin, 1985), a mode of viewing relevant to this study.

The reported age of participants ranged from 18 to 54 years old (M = 19.60, SD = 2.96), with 6 participants not reporting their age. There were more females (n = 249) in the sample than there were males (n = 150), with 2 participants not reporting their gender. No demographic data beyond age and gender were gathered.

Sixty-four participants reported that during the indicated period (one week prior to the taking of the survey) they did not watch any television news (conventional or comedy). I decided to exclude these participants from further analysis. At the other end of the exposure spectrum, some participants reported numbers that seemed unusually large. There was suspicion that perhaps some of them misunderstood the question and some simply entered random numbers.

For example, one participant reported watching conventional news 53 times and comedy news

64 times in a week. However, because no real pattern was apparent, I decided to proceed cautiously and consider eliminating only those participants who reported watching 30 or more programs of either genre per week. This number seemed a good natural cutoff point, as there was a fairly large gap between the closest numbers smaller than 30 and larger than 30. In addition, there was some evidence in these participants’ answers to other questions in the survey that they might have been answering carelessly, without paying enough attention to the content of the questions. This decision resulted in elimination of 8 subjects. Thus the total number of participants included in further analysis was reduced to N = 329. In this sample, the reported age ranged from 18 to 54 years old (M = 19.61, SD = 3.18), with 5 participants not reporting their age. There were more females (n = 199) in the sample than there were males (n = 128), with 2 participants not reporting their gender.

Measures

As indicated above, in the online survey that was administered to the participants (See

Appendix L), the following data was collected: age, gender, political ideology, need for cognition, motives, level of exposure and circumstances (whether they watch news alone or with others) in which they watch conventional and parody news programs. Participants’ cognitive and affective involvement with these types of programs was assessed as well. The survey also measured participants’ political knowledge and the level of their political self-efficacy.

Exposure to Conventional and Parody News

As in prior U&G research (e.g., Haridakis, 2006; Perse, 1990b; Rubin, 1983), I assessed the amount of exposure to different types of programming by asking participants to indicate how frequently they watched these particular programs. Participants were asked the following question: “In the past week, how many times did you watch each of the television news programs listed below?” To minimize the possibility of misinterpretation of the question, the following instructions were added: “Please write in the number that best reflects how often you watched these programs. (For example, if during the past week you watched the program five times, write ‘5’ in the space provided. If in the past week you did not watch the particular program at all, please write ‘0’ in the space provided.).” Such open-ended questions, designed to yield useful estimates of viewing levels, have been successfully used in past research (e.g.,

Haridakis, 2002; Perse, 1990b; Rubin, 1983).

For conventional news, the following programs were listed: Network evening news (ABC

World News, NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News, PBS NewsHour), cable news programs

(CNN Newsroom, FNC The Fox Report, Headline News Prime News, BBC World News), and local newscasts (Channels 3, 5, 8, 19, etc.).

For comedy news, the frequency of exposure question was asked again, and the following programs were listed: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Late Show with David Letterman, Saturday Night Live, Real Time with Bill

Mahrer, Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Conan, The Rachel Maddow Show, and Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld.

Although most shows on the comedy news list are technically talk or variety shows and not comedy news shows per se, they all contain substantial segments devoted to political humor/commentary on current events, and SNL even has parody news segment (Weekend

Update).

Participants’ answers were summed to form an index of exposure. For conventional news, the number of times participants reported to have watched programs from the list during the week prior to data collection ranged from 0 to 30 (M = 5.18, SD = 4.84), whereas for comedy news the range was 0 to 26 (M = 4.10, SD = 4.31). See Table 1 for the number of participants watching particular programs along with item means and standard deviations.

Table 1. Exposure to Conventional and Comedy News Programs: Number Watched, Means and Standard Deviations

Program n M SD

Conventional News ABC World News 121 0.60 0.96 NBC Nightly News 105 0.54 1.08 CBS Evening News 80 0.38 0.78 PBS NewsHour 19 0.07 0.28 BBC World New 37 0.18 0.59 CNN Newsroom 141 0.88 1.32 FNC The Fox Report 57 0.34 0.88 Headline News Prime News 65 0.41 1.08 Local Newscasts 217 1.79 2.00

(continued)

Table 1. Exposure to Conventional and Comedy News Programs: Number Watched, Means and Standard Deviations (continued)

Program n M SD

Comedy News The Daily Show with Jon Stewart 114 0.75 1.35 The Colbert Report 112 0.75 1.63 The Tonight Show with Jay Leno 72 0.38 0.89 The Late Show with David Letterman 48 0.22 0.64 Saturday Night Live 153 0.73 1.19 Real Time with Bill Mahrer 15 0.05 0.27 Late Night with Jimmy Fallon 58 0.29 0.75 Jimmy Kimmel Live! 46 0.20 0.59 Conan 95 0.60 1.18 The Rachel Maddow Show 17 0.08 0.42 Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld 8 0.03 0.22

Note. Means based on self-reported number of times participants watched programs listed. N = 329

Political Ideology

This variable has been measured most often by means of self-identification by participants. An index of participants’ political ideology can be obtained directly, by asking participants to locate themselves on a continuum of ideological positions, ranging from liberal to conservative. To achieve this goal, I used a scale adapted from Baumgartner and Morris’ (2006), and Moy, Xenos and Hess’ (2005) research (see Appendix C), designed to probe participants’ general positions on political and social issues. I asked the participants to mark their self- assessed ideological position on a single-item scale, ranging from Very Liberal (1) to Very

Conservative (5). (M = 2.88, SD = 0.87).

Need for Cognition

I measured need for cognition using Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao’s (1984) 18-item scale that was developed as a more efficient version of the original 34-item instrument (Cacioppo & Petty,

1982). The reliability of this scale has been reported to be very high. According to the authors,

57 theta (maximized Cronbach alpha) for this scale was .90 (while theta for the original 34-item scale was .91). Because the validity of the original full-scale version was already well established, comparing the original and the new scales assessed the validity of the new shorter scale. The correlation between the two versions of this scale was very good (r = .95). As the authors themselves put it, “the validating factor analysis of the short form revealed that: (a) the first extracted factor explained a comparatively large proportion of the variance in the items, (b) subsequent factors explained fairly equal (though, of course, decreasing) proportions of the remaining variance, (c) all but one of the items had substantial loadings on the first factor, and

(d) all but one of the items had higher loadings on the first than subsequent factors” (pp. 306-

307).

Participants were asked questions designed to probe their liking and willingness to engage in mental activity (thinking). They responded by marking their choices on a 5-point

Likert-type scale, with possible responses ranging from Not at all like me (1) to Very much like me (5) (see Appendix D). Half of the items were reverse coded. Participants’ scores for all items in the measure were summed and averaged to create a single need for cognition score for each participant (M = 3.27, SD = 0.47, α = .85). See Table 2 for item means and standard deviations.

Table 2. Need for Cognition Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations

Item M SD

I would prefer complex to simple problems. 3.00 0.91

I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking. 3.45 0.84

Thinking is not my idea of fun.* 3.48 0.84

I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.* 3.38 0.88

(continued)

Table 2. Need for Cognition Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations (continued)

Item M SD

I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely chance I will have to think in depth about something.* 3.55 0.84

I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours. 2.84 0.92

I only think as hard as I have to.* 3.14 0.96

I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.* 2.79 0.91

I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them.* 2.71 0.83

The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me. 3.57 0.78

I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems. 3.71 0.81

Learning new ways to think does not excite me very much.* 3.54 0.88

I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve. 3.19 0.88

The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me. 3.43 0.87

I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought. 3.26 0.85

I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.* 2.94 0.98

It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works.* 3.36 0.96

I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally. 3.45 0.88

Note. Means are based on 5-point scales. Scores ranged from 1 (Not at all like me) to 5 (Very much like me). N = 329. * These items were reverse-coded for further analysis. Table data reflect the recoding.

Viewer Motives

I measured viewer motives using Rubin’s (1983) Television Viewing Motives Scale. This scale is a very popular measure of viewing motivation, especially in U&G research (Rubin,

1994). It consists of 27 questions designed to probe respondents’ reasons for watching television

(see Appendix E). According to Rubin (1994), the reliability of this scale is moderate to high,

59 with Cronbach alphas ranging between .68 (Escape Motivation) to .87 (Entertainment). In more recent research, Haridakis and Rubin (2005) recorded Cronbach alphas of this scale at between

.69 (Information motivation) and .85 (Pass time). Several successful research projects utilizing this scale over the years have confirmed its validity. For example, Rubin and Perse (1987b) found validity for news-viewing motives through links to audience activity, especially distractions and cognitive involvement. Although some studies have suggested that the scale might not contain all possible motives for specific programs or other media (Rubin, 1994), researchers were able to adapt and augment this scale for precisely such situations. For example,

Haridakis and Rubin (2005) added items specific to stories about terrorism.

Respondents marked their answers on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from Not at all

(1) to Exactly (5). Separate answers were collected for the motives participants had for watching conventional news and comedy news programs. As in past U&G research, a factor analysis was conducted for the news viewing motives included in this study. Means and standard deviations of all items in the scale are presented in Table 3 (conventional news) and Table 4 (comedy news).

The 27 items were subjected to a principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation.

I required a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 and at least two loadings using a 60-40 rule as a guide to retain a factor. Scores for items that loaded on each factor were summed and averaged to form indexes of each news-viewing motive.

Table 3. Conventional News-Viewing Motives: Item Means and Standard Deviations

Motives/Items M SD

Because I just like to watch 2.78 0.88 So I can talk with other people about what’s on 2.78 1.03 Because it allows me to unwind 2.26 0.99 Because it’s exciting 2.49 0.96

(continued)

Table 3. Conventional News-Viewing Motives: Item Means and Standard Deviations (continued)

Motives/Items M SD

Because it helps me learn things about myself and others 2.98 1.07 When there is no one else to talk to or be with 2.16 1.00 So I can get away from the rest of the family or others 1.77 0.83 Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored 2.41 1.06 Because it’s enjoyable 2.60 0.97 So I can forget about school, work, or other things 2.23 1.03 Because it makes me feel less lonely 1.70 0.89 Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time 2.58 0.99 So I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before 2.60 1.03 Because it’s something to do when friends come over 1.68 0.85 Because it relaxes me 1.68 0.85 Because it’s a habit, just something I do 2.21 1.04 Because it entertains me 2.67 1.03 Because it’s thrilling 2.31 0.94 So I can get away from what I’m doing 2.22 0.96 So I can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching 2.58 1.06 Because it’s a pleasant rest 2.23 1.02 Just because it’s there 2.96 1.07 Because it peps me up 1.94 0.91 So I could learn about what could happen to me 2.96 1.05 So I won’t have to be alone 1.69 0.84 When I have nothing better to do 2.67 1.09 Because it amuses me 2.50 1.03 Note. Means are based on 5-point scales. Scores ranged from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Exactly). N = 329.

For conventional news, four different viewing motive factors, accounting for 60.81% of the total variance after rotation, were identified. Results of this factor analysis are presented in Table

5. The four motive factors were (1) stimulating entertainment, (2) companionship, (3) pass time, and (4) information seeking.

Factor 1, Stimulating Entertainment, contained three entertainment items (“Because it entertains me,” “Because it’s enjoyable,” and “Because it amuses me”), two arousal items

(“Because it’s exciting” and “Because it’s thrilling”), and one habit item (“Because I just like to watch”) (M = 2.56, SD = 0.79, α = .90).

Factor 2, Companionship, contained two companionship items (“Because it makes me feel less lonely” and “So I won’t have to be alone”), one relaxation item (“Because it relaxes me”), and one escape item (“So I can get away from the rest of the family or others”) (M = 1.71,

SD = 0.69, α = .81).

Table 4. Comedy News-Viewing Motives: Item Means and Standard Deviations

Motives/Items M SD

Because I just like to watch 3.52 0.96 So I can talk with other people about what’s on 2.97 1.00 Because it allows me to unwind 3.23 1.03 Because it’s exciting 3.32 0.99 Because it helps me learn things about myself and others 2.64 1.01 When there is no one else to talk to or be with 2.49 1.03 So I can get away from the rest of the family or others 2.04 0.99 Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored 3.06 1.06 Because it’s enjoyable 3.67 0.96 So I can forget about school, work, or other things 3.05 1.11 Because it makes me feel less lonely 2.07 1.05 Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time 3.08 1.03 So I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before 2.33 1.00 Because it’s something to do when friends come over 2.75 1.07 Because it relaxes me 2.94 1.09 Because it’s a habit, just something I do 2.60 1.09 Because it entertains me 3.67 0.98 Because it’s thrilling 2.76 1.04 So I can get away from what I’m doing 2.80 1.00 So I can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching 2.80 1.11 Because it’s a pleasant rest 2.96 1.07 Just because it’s there 2.93 0.90 Because it peps me up 2.67 1.05 So I could learn about what could happen to me 2.33 1.00 So I won’t have to be alone 1.94 0.96 When I have nothing better to do 2.92 1.03 Because it amuses me 3.61 1.01 Note. Means are based on 5-point scales. Scores ranged from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Exactly). N = 329.

Factor 3, Pass Time, contained three pass time items (“When I have nothing better to do,”

“Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored,” and “Because it gives me

62 something to do to occupy my time”), and one habit item (“Just because it’s there”) (M = 2.66,

SD = 0.85, α = .82).

Factor 4, Information Seeking, contained two information items (“Because it helps me learn things about myself and others” and “So I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before”) and one social interaction item (“So I can talk with other people about what’s on”)

(M = 2.79, SD = 0.85, α = .75).

Table 5. Factor Loadings for Conventional News Viewing Motives

Motive Items Viewing Motives

STIM COMP PASS INFO

Stimulating Entertainment Because I just like to watch .86 .07 .13 .38 Because it entertains me .81 .11 .13 .16 Because it’s enjoyable .81 .14 .05 .33 Because it’s exciting .71 .17 -.01 .37 Because it’s thrilling .71 .21 .02 .22 Because it amuses me .68 .17 .16 .08 Companionship Because it makes me feel less lonely .21 .78 .16 .09 So I won’t have to be alone .07 .76 .21 .03 So I can get away from the rest of the family or others .13 .73 .21 .12 Because it relaxes me .18 .69 .06 .24 Pass Time Just because it’s there -.03 .02 .80 .11 When I have nothing better to do .05 .16 .79 -.00 Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored. .19 .28 .72 .15 Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time .24 .25 .71 .13 Information Seeking So I can talk with other people about what’s on .24 .01 .09 .75 So I can talk with other people about what’s on .24 .01 .09 .75 Because it helps me learn things about myself and others .36 .07 .02 .74 So I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before .21 .30 .19 .68

(continued)

Table 5. Factor Loadings for Conventional News Viewing Motives (continued)

Motive Items Viewing Motives

STIM COMP PASS INFO

Eigenvalue 10.84 2.72 1.68 1.28 Variance Explained 20.31 16.47 12.81 11.22 Cronbach Alpha .90 .81 .82 .75 M 2.56 1.71 2.66 2.79 SD 0.79 0.69 0.85 0.85 Note. N = 329. STIM = Stimulating Entertainment, COMP = Companionship, PASS = Pass Time, INFO = Information Seeking.

For comedy news, four different viewing motive factors were identified, accounting for

59.78% of the total variance after rotation. Scores for items that loaded on each factor were summed and averaged to form indexes of each news-viewing motive. Results of factor analysis are presented in Table 6. The four motive factors were (1) relaxing entertainment, (2) escape, (3) information learning, and (4) pass time.

Factor 1, Relaxing Entertainment, contained three entertainment items (“Because it entertains me,” “Because it’s enjoyable,” and “Because it amuses me”), one relaxation item

(“Because it allows me to unwind”), one habit item (“Because I just like to watch”), and one arousal item (“Because it’s exciting”) (M = 3.50, SD = 0.83, α = .92).

Factor 2, Escape, contained two escape items (“So I can get away from the rest of the family or others” and “So I can get away from what I’m doing”), and one companionship item

(“Because it makes me feel less lonely”) (M = 2.30, SD = 0.83, α = .76).

Factor 3, Information Learning, contained three information items (“Because it helps me learn things about myself and others,” “So I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before,” and “So I could learn about what could happen to me”) (M = 2.43, SD = 0.85, α = .81).

Factor 4, Pass Time, contained three pass time items (“When I have nothing better to do,”

“Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored,” and “Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time”) and one habit item (“Just because it’s there”) (M = 2.99,

SD = 0.80, α = .81).

Table 6. Factor Loadings for Comedy News Viewing Motives Motive Items Viewing Motives

ENT ESC LEARN PAST

Relaxing Entertainment Because it’s enjoyable .85 .13 .09 .08 Because it entertains me .83 .04 .09 .15 Because I just like to watch .82 .01 .09 .21 Because it amuses me .82 .00 .12 .19 Because it allows me to unwind .75 .26 .12 .09 Because it’s exciting .69 .18 .23 .15 Escape So I can get away from the rest of the family or others .17 .72 .16 .31 Because it makes me feel less lonely -.03 .72 .29 .26 So I can get away from what I am doing .41 .59 .05 .28 Information Learning So I could learn about what could happen to me .08 .13 .85 .09 Because it helps me learn things about myself and others .31 .10 .73 .10 So I can learn how to do things which I haven’t done before .10 .35 .73 .06 Pass Time When I have nothing better to do .13 .11 .09 .80 Just because it’s there .06 .08 .22 .67 Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored .33 .31 -.02 .65 Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time .39 .32 .01 .61

Eigenvalue 11.24 2.84 1.91 1.27 Variance Explained 23.48 13.77 11.53 11.00 Cronbach Alpha .92 .76 .81 .81 M 3.50 2.30 2.43 2.99 SD 0.83 0.86 0.85 0.80 Note. N = 329. ENT = Relaxing Entertainment, ESC = Escape, LEARN = Information Learning, PAST = Pass Time.

Co-Viewing

This variable was assessed separately for conventional and comedy news, with a single question asking the participants how often they watched news programs alone or together with other people (friends, family, etc.). Such a single item method is consistent with research on co- viewing performed in the past (e.g., Austin, Bolls, & Engelbertson, 1999; Dorr, Kovaric, &

Doubleday, 1989; Yang & Nathanson, 2005). Participants marked their answers on a 5-point scale ranging from Always alone (1) to Always with others (5) (see Appendix G). For conventional news, the mean was M = 3.02 (SD = 0.96), and for comedy news, the mean was

M = 3.23 (SD = 0.91).

Cognitive Involvement

I measured this aspect of viewer involvement with TV news using an instrument originally constructed by Perse (1990b), and later adapted by Kim and Rubin (1997). Perse’s

(1990b) 5-item elaboration scale probed participants’ amount of thinking about news stories. She reported that the scale was reliable, with Cronbach alphas ranging from .83 to .85, depending on the kind of news stories to which the participants were exposed. Kim and Rubin (1997) reported that their instrument proved reliable, with a Cronbach alpha of .81.

As for the validity of this measure, Perse (1990b) found that stronger utilitarian

(personal/social utility) viewing motives were linked to cognitive involvement with local news.

She also reported that elaboration (an aspect of cognitive involvement) was linked to emotional responses to serious news. Kim and Rubin (1997) reported positive links between cognitive involvement and parasocial interaction (a form of affective involvement).

Participants were asked five questions designed to measure the amount of their thinking about conventional news and again about comedy news. They responded by marking their

66 choices on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from Not at all like me (1) to Very much like me

(5) (see Appendix H). Participant responses were summed and averaged to form an index of cognitive involvement. For conventional news, the mean score was M = 2.93 (SD = 0.78, α =

.77). For comedy news, the mean score was M = 2.59 (SD = 0.87, α = .84). See Table 7 for conventional news item means and standard deviations and Table 8 for comedy news item means and standard deviations.

Table 7. Cognitive Involvement – Conventional News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations

Item M SD

I think about what should be done with respect to the issue in the program. 3.20 1.03

I think about the story in the program over and over again. 2.58 1.03

I think about what the content of the program means to me and my family. 2.94 1.21

I think about what the content of the program means to other people. 2.82 1.09

I think about how the story in the program relates to other things I know. 3.11 1.05

Note. Means are based on a 5-point scale. Scores ranged from 1 (Not at all like me) to 5 (Very much like me). N = 329.

Table 8. Cognitive Involvement – Comedy News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations

Item M SD

I think about what should be done with respect to the issue in the program. 2.78 1.06

I think about the story in the program over and over again. 2.43 1.10

I think about what the content of the program means to me and my family. 2.45 1.17

I think about what the content of the program means to other people. 2.50 1.12

I think about how the story in the program relates to other things I know. 2.79 1.13

Note. Means are based on a 5-point scale. Scores ranged from 1 (Not at all like me) to 5 (Very much like me). N = 329.

Affective Involvement

I measured affective involvement with Perse’s (1990b) instrument (see Appendix I).

Perse adapted her instrument from previous research (Davitz, 1969) by adding new items in order to make the measure more precise with regard to emotions under consideration. The scale consists of 15 items covering three basic kinds of emotions: happiness, sadness, and anger. All three kinds of emotion can be considered potentially relevant to political news.

Perse (1990b) reported the reliability of her scale to be .81 for happiness, .86 for anger, and .88 for sadness. Although her instrument covers only three kinds of emotions, it does possess, in my opinion, enough face validity to warrant repeated use in studies like this one.

Using this instrument, Perse (1990b) found certain motives for television viewing to be linked to affective involvement. She also reported a strong relationship between overall cognitive and affective involvement.

Respondents indicated how often they felt particular emotions while watching conventional television news programming by marking their answers on a Likert-type scale ranging from Never (1) to Very often (5). They answered the same questions later in the survey, with regard to comedy news. Participant responses were summed and averaged to form indices of happiness, anger and sadness, as manifestations of affective involvement.

For conventional news, the mean scores were as follows: happiness M = 2.12 (SD = 0.70,

α = .80); anger M = 2.14 (SD = 0.84, α = .86); and sadness M = 2.13 (SD = 0.72, α = .79). For comedy news, mean scores were: happiness M = 3.07 (SD = 0.83, α = .83); anger M = 1.66 (SD

= 0.78, α = .91); and sadness M = 1.66 (SD = 0.79, α = .89). See Table 9 for conventional news item means and standard deviations and Table 10 for comedy news item means and standard deviations.

Table 9. Affective Involvement – Conventional News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations

Item M SD

Happy I feel a warm inner glow 1.78 0.92 I feel like smiling 2.28 0.95 I feel a warm excitement 1.97 0.93 I feel happy 2.33 0.86 I feel like laughing 2.25 1.01 Angry I feel my blood pressure go up 2.05 1.08 I feel like clenching my fists 1.92 1.02 I feel like clenching my teeth 2.25 1.07 I feel my face get tight, tense, and hard 1.91 1.00 I get angry 2.58 1.06 Sad I feel a lump in my throat 1.88 0.95 I feel myself getting choked up 1.86 0.96 My heart seems to ache 2.51 1.08 Tears come to my eyes 1.86 0.95 I feel sad 2.53 0.94

Note. Means are based on 5-point scales. Scores ranged from 1 (Not at all like me) to 5 (Very much like me). N = 329.

Table 10. Affective Involvement – Comedy News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations

Item M SD

Happy I feel a warm inner glow 2.10 1.09 I feel like smiling 3.55 1.03 I feel a warm excitement 2.54 1.14 I feel happy 3.34 1.14 I feel like laughing 3.82 1.19 Angry I feel my blood pressure go up 1.60 0.88 I feel like clenching my fists 1.61 0.92 I feel like clenching my teeth 1.72 0.96 I feel my face get tight, tense, and hard 1.57 0.92 I get angry 1.79 0.90

(continued)

Table 10. Affective Involvement – Comedy News Scale: Item Means and Standard Deviations (continued)

Item M SD

Sad I feel a lump in my throat 1.59 0.93 I feel myself getting choked up 1.59 0.96 My heart seems to ache 1.70 0.94 Tears come to my eyes 1.69 1.00 I feel sad 1.75 0.90

Note. Means are based on 5-point scales. Scores ranged from 1 (Not at all like me) to 5 (Very much like me). N = 329.

Political Knowledge

According to Jennings (1998), there are three different types of indicators used to assess levels of political knowledge: 1) questions about the mechanics of government (“textbook facts”), testing knowledge most often introduced via the educational system; 2) questions probing knowledge of current events and new political developments (“surveillance facts”), usually acquired through the media and personal contacts; and 3) questions pertaining to historical facts (a combination of textbook and surveillance). In this study, I focused only on the second type of indicator of political knowledge – the surveillance facts.

Measurements of surveillance facts are usually distinct, specific to particular research project, and time sensitive. What may be an indicator of political knowledge today will become a marker of historical knowledge a few years down the road. For example, Baum (2003) used the

1989 invasion of Panama as material for questions designed to assess political knowledge.

However, Operation Just Cause and Manuel Noriega are probably little-known historical details to today’s generation of college students.

Another difficult issue with measuring political knowledge is that scholars disagree on the general effectiveness of measuring instruments in use. Especially controversial the use of questionnaires allowing for respondents to use the “don’t know” answer. Additionally, some scholars claim that wrong answers also cloud the issue of how much real knowledge a respondent possesses (Mondak, 1999). However, surveys containing questions about currently important political facts are still a valuable research tool for assessing respondents’ political knowledge.

A very important problem to be taken into consideration when choosing a method of assessing political knowledge is the time sensitivity issue. I wanted to use an instrument that would probe the most up-to-date knowledge of political issues and events. I decided to employ

Pew Research Center’s ongoing News IQ Quiz (available from http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/). A version of the quiz used in the study is presented in

Appendix J. The quiz consisted of 10 multiple choice questions, related primarily to political news covered by the U.S. media in the previous several months. The sum of correct answers to these questions formed an index of political knowledge. Participants’ mean score was M = 6.02

(SD = 1.94). The reliability of this 10-item scale was Cronbach alpha α = .51. It increased to α =

.59 when two items (“In the U.S. Congress, Republicans have a majority in:” and “On which of these activities does the U.S. government spend the most money?”) were eliminated. However, these two questions were probably some of the best indicators of political knowledge, and to eliminate them from further analysis would likely lower the validity of this scale. Therefore, I decided to proceed with the full, 10-item version, in spite of its not particularly impressive reliability. See Table 11 for item means and standard deviations.

Table 11. Political Knowledge Scale – Item Means, Standard Deviations and Number of Correct Answers

Item M SD # correct in sample Is the current speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives? 0.50 0.50 164 (Mitch McConnell; Newt Gingrich; John Boehner; Nancy Pelosi)

The Obama administration is proposing revisions to the “No Child Left Behind” Act. That legislation deals with which of these issues? 0.94 0.23 310 (Transportation; Education; Adoption; Nutrition)

Is the national unemployment rate as reported by the government currently closer to: 0.54 0.50 179 (5%; 9%; 15%; 21%)

On which of these activities does the U.S. government currently spend the most money? 0.43 0.50 140 (Education; Medicare; Interest on the national debt; Scientific research)

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, what percentage of Americans are obese? 0.62 0.49 205 (5%; 10%; 25%; 50%)

Who founded the social networking site called Facebook? 0.94 0.23 310 (Bill Gates; Jon Stewart; Steve Jobs; Mark Zuckerberg)

In the U.S. Congress, Republicans have a majority in: 0.37 0.49 121 (The House of Representatives only; The Senate only; Both the House and Senate; Neither the House nor the Senate)

Is Hillary Clinton: 0.68 0.47 223 (Secretary of State; A senator; A governor; An ambassador)

What issue was the main focus of recent protests and political debates in Wisconsin? 0.54 0.50 179 (Same-sex marriage; The death penalty; Union rights for public employees; Agriculture subsidies)

Which source of energy provides the most electricity in the U.S.? 0.46 0.50 151 (Hydroelectric; Nuclear; Coal; Wind)

Note. Means are based on the number of correct answers to questions (1 awarded for correct answer, 0 for incorrect answer). N = 329.

Political Self-Efficacy

I measured political self-efficacy using Holbert et al.’s (2007) measure. This is a 3-item instrument expanded from a 2-item measure proposed by Madsen (1987), who analyzed two decades of research on methods of measuring political self-efficacy and concluded that a widely used 4-item instrument contained items that were either redundant or uncorrelated with others.

According to Madsen (1989), the two items used in his instrument, that were also used in Holbert et al.’s (2007) 3-item scale, were highly correlated for every sample of the many demographic groups he examined. These items emphasize personal rather than systemic factors. Using their 3- item scale to assess political self-efficacy, Holbert et al. linked low internal political self-efficacy to the primacy effect of The Daily Show on political gratifications associated with watching national news programming.

Holbert et al.’s (2007) measure is an additive index consisting of participant responses to the following three statements: “Whether I vote or not has no influence on what politicians do,”

“Sometimes government and politics seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what is going on,” and “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.” Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement for each statement on

5-point scales ranging from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5) (see Appendix H). The index of political self-efficacy was created by summing and averaging reverse-coded responses to questions included in this scale (M = 3.18, SD = 0.85, α = .63). See Table 12 for item means and standard deviations.

Table 12. Political Self-Efficacy: Item Means and Standard Deviations

Item M SD

Whether I vote or not has no influence on what politicians do 3.22 1.15

Sometimes government and politics seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what is going on 2.92 1.14

People like me don’t have any say about what the government does 3.40 1.07

Note. Means are based on 5-point scales. Scores ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). N = 329.

Statistical Analysis

I will now briefly describe the statistical procedures I used to address the hypotheses and research questions included in this study.

Computation of Viewer Motivation Variables

In order to identify viewer motives for watching conventional and comedy news to be used in hypothesis/research question testing, two principal component factor analyses were performed (See the Methodology chapter for description of procedures and results).

Relationships Between Variables in the Viewing Process

The hypotheses and research questions associated with the individual relationships among variables predicted to have influence on the process of news viewing (ideology, need for cognition, viewer motives, exposure, co-viewing, cognitive involvement, and affective involvement) and its effects (political knowledge and political self-efficacy) were tested and/or answered by utilizing Pearson’s Product Moment correlation analysis, controlling for demographic variables (age, gender).

Differences Between the Processes of Viewing Conventional and Comedy News

To answer to the general question of differences between antecedents and characteristics of viewing conventional and comedy news, I ran a series of four hierarchical regression analyses to obtain partial regression coefficients indicating contributions of individual independent variables to explaining of political knowledge and self-efficacy. Given the U&G model suggested earlier, demographic characteristics (age, gender) were be entered in Step 1, followed by psychological characteristics (need for cognition, ideology) in Step 2, viewer motives in

Step 3, co-viewing and exposure in Step 4, and ending with both dimensions of involvement in

Step 5. Political knowledge and self-efficacy served as dependent variables. This sequential way of including independent variables into the regression has been successfully employed in past

U&G research (e.g. Kim & Rubin, 1997; Haridakis, 2006).

Chapter III

RESULTS

In this chapter, I present the results of statistical analyses used to test the hypotheses and answer the research questions posed above. A more detailed discussion of theoretical implications of these results will be presented in the final chapter.

Hypotheses

All hypothesis testing involved controlling for contributions of age and gender. A partial correlation procedure was used to achieve that goal.

Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be a positive relationship between liberal political ideology and viewing news for entertainment reasons. The partial correlation between liberal ideology and viewing conventional news for entertainment was positive but not significant

(partial r = .06, p = .42). The partial correlation between liberal ideology and viewing comedy news for entertainment was not significant either (partial r = .00, p = .99). Therefore, H1 was not supported.

Hypothesis 2 stated that need for cognition would be positively related to viewing news for information. The partial correlation between need for cognition and viewing conventional news for information was positive and significant (partial r = .20, p < .001). The partial correlation between need for cognition and viewing comedy news for information was not significant (partial r = .00, p = .99). Thus, H2 was partially supported -- only with respect to conventional news.

Hypothesis 3a predicted that that watching for information would be positively related to conventional news viewing. The results of partial correlation reveal that watching conventional

76 news for information seeking was related to the level of exposure to these programs (partial r = .39, p < .001). Therefore, H3a was supported.

Hypothesis 3b stated that watching for entertainment would be positively related to comedy news viewing. The partial correlation between watching comedy news for entertainment and the level of exposure to these programs was positive and significant (partial r = .28, p < .001). Thus, H3b was supported.

Hypothesis 3c stated that watching news to be entertained would be positively related to co-viewing. The results of partial correlation analysis show that watching conventional news for entertainment was negatively related to co-viewing of these types of programs (partial r = -.22, p < .001). The partial correlation between watching comedy news for entertainment and co- viewing of comedy news was positive but not significant (partial r = .09, p = .11). Therefore,

H3c was not supported.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that that conventional news viewing would be positively related to cognitive involvement. The results of partial correlation analysis reveal that exposure to conventional news viewing was positively related to cognitive involvement with these types of programs (partial r = .27, p < .001). Therefore, H4 was supported.

Research Questions

Research Question 1 asked whether there was a relationship between political orientation and information-seeking motives. The partial correlation between liberal orientation and watching conventional news for information seeking was not significant (partial r = -.04, p = .62). The partial correlation between liberal orientation and watching comedy news for information learning was positive and significant (partial r = .26, p < .01). Therefore, the answer to this question would be that the more ideologically liberal the viewer the more likely he/she

77 was to watch comedy news for information learning. The question could not be answered with regard to conventional news viewing.

Research Question 2 inquired about the relationship between need for cognition and viewing news for entertainment reasons. The partial correlation between need for cognition and watching conventional news for stimulating entertainment was not significant (partial r = .02, p = .67). The results of the partial correlation analysis reveal that need for cognition and watching comedy news for relaxing entertainment were positively related (partial r = .17, p <

.01). Thus, this research question could be answered by saying that there is a positive relationship between need for cognition and the relaxing entertainment motive for the viewing of comedy news.

Research Question 3 asked about the relationship between watching news for information and co-viewing. The results of partial correlation analysis show that co-viewing of conventional news and watching these programs for information seeking were negatively related and significant (partial r = -.14, p = .013). Watching comedy news for information learning was not significantly related to viewing these types of programs with others (partial r = .10, p = .081).

Therefore, Research Question 3 was answered only with regard to conventional news -- there was a negative relationship between viewing conventional news for information motives and viewing these programs with other people rather than alone.

Research Question 4a inquired about the relationship between conventional news viewing and affective involvement. Separate testing was performed for all three dimensions of affective involvement: happiness, anger, and sadness. The partial correlation between exposure to conventional news and happiness was positive and significant (partial r = .25, p < .001), but exposure to conventional news was not significantly related to anger (partial r = .07, p = .24).

Lastly, the partial correlation between exposure to conventional news and sadness was positive and significant (partial r = .13, p < .03). Therefore, the answer to Research Question 4a is that the happiness and the sadness dimensions of affective involvement and the level of exposure to conventional news are positively related. The anger dimension was not found to be linked to exposure to this genre.

Research Question 4b inquired about the relationship between the amount of comedy news viewing and cognitive involvement. The results of partial correlation analysis indicate that these two variables were positively related (partial r = .26, p < .001).

Research Question 4c inquired about the relationship between comedy news viewing and affective involvement. Three separate dimensions of affective involvement were used in testing of this relationship; happiness, anger, and sadness. The partial correlation between the level of exposure to comedy news and the happiness dimension was positive and significant (partial r = .20, p < .001). Exposure to comedy news and anger were not significantly related (partial r = .04, p = .46) nor were exposure and sadness (partial r = .07, p = .25). Therefore, RQ4c could be answered by saying that there is a positive relationship between the level of exposure to comedy news and the happiness dimension of affective involvement with this genre. No relationships between the anger and the sadness dimensions of affective involvement and exposure to comedy were detected.

Research Question 5a inquired about the nature of the relationship between co-viewing and cognitive involvement. The results of partial correlation analyses reveal that cognitive involvement was not related to co-viewing of conventional news (partial r = -.08, p = .14) or comedy news (r = .11, p = .054).

Research Question 5b asked about the relationship between co-viewing and affective involvement. The partial correlations between co-viewing of conventional news and all three dimensions of affective involvement with these programs were not significant (for happiness: partial r = -.02, p = .78; for anger: partial r = -.07, p = .21; for sadness: partial r = .03, p = .59).

The partial correlation between co-viewing of comedy news and the three dimensions of affective involvement with these programs was significant only for happiness (partial r = -.11, p < .05). Correlations between co-viewing of comedy news and the other two dimensions of affective involvement with these programs were not significant (for anger: partial r = -.04, p = .46; for sadness: partial r = -.06, p = .28). Therefore, those who tended to watch comedy news with others experienced less happiness than did their counterparts.

Research Question 6a concerned the nature of the relationship between cognitive involvement and political knowledge. Political knowledge and cognitive involvement with conventional news were not related (partial r = .07, p = .20), and neither was political knowledge and cognitive involvement with comedy news (partial r = -.00, p = .93).

Research Question 6b intended to explore the relationship between cognitive involvement and political self-efficacy. There was a significant relationship between cognitive involvement with conventional news and political self-efficacy (partial r = .11, p = .04). However, cognitive involvement with comedy news and political self-efficacy were not significantly related (partial r = .04, p = .46). Thus, results suggest that increased cognitive involvement with conventional news was positively related to higher political self-efficacy.

Research question 6c inquired about the relationship between affective involvement and political knowledge. None of the three dimensions of affective involvement with conventional news was related to political knowledge (for happiness, partial r = -.10; for anger, partial r = .03;

80 and for sadness, partial r = -.09). Two dimensions of affective involvement with comedy news were significantly related to political knowledge (for anger, partial r = -.15, p < .01 and for sadness, partial r = -.17, p < .01). The partial correlation between happiness and political knowledge was not significant (partial r = .01, p = .89). Therefore, this research question could be answered by saying that only the anger and the sadness dimensions of affective involvement with comedy news were (negatively) related to political knowledge.

Research Question 6d probed the relationship between affective involvement and political self-efficacy. None of the partial correlations between the three measured dimensions of affective involvement with conventional news and political self-efficacy were significant (for happiness: partial r = .08, p = .15; for anger: partial r = -.03, p = .64; for sadness: partial r = -.06, p = .31). Only the happiness dimension of affective involvement with comedy news was significantly related to political self-efficacy (partial r = .12, p < .05). Anger (partial r = -.06) and sadness (partial r = -.07) were not significantly related to political self-efficacy.

Predicting Political Knowledge and Political Self-Efficacy

The overarching research question (RQ7) inquired about the contributions of age, gender, ideology, need for cognition, viewer motives, certain viewing patterns (co-viewing, exposure to different genres of news), as well as cognitive and affective involvement with conventional and comedy news to predicting political knowledge and political self-efficacy. Four hierarchical regression analyses were run to help answer this question. The first regression addressed the contribution of conventional news viewing and other antecedents to predicting the formation of political knowledge. The second regression addressed the role of the same antecedents and patterns in predicting political self-efficacy. The third regression probed the contribution of comedy news viewing and other antecedents to predicting political knowledge. And the fourth regression addressed the role of these same variables in the predicting political self-efficacy.

In all regressions, age and gender were entered first as control variables. In the second step, need for cognition and ideology were entered, followed by motives on the third step. In the fourth step exposure to and co-viewing of news were entered. Finally, cognitive and affective involvement were entered on the fifth step. This conceptual order was suggested by the theoretical assumptions of the U&G model that guided this study. To reiterate, U&G focuses on

"(1) the social and psychological origins of (2) needs which generate (3) expectations of (4) the mass media or other sources, which lead to (5) differential patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities), resulting in (6) need gratifications and (7) other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones" (Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1974, p. 20).

To help answering the problems contained in to RQ7, I also checked some descriptive statistics and ran a series of paired samples t-tests, comparing how antecedent variables operate depending on the news viewing context (conventional or comedy).

Predicting Political Knowledge for Conventional News Viewing

Age and gender, entered on the first step, accounted for 1.4% of the variance in political knowledge. Male gender was a significant predictor (β = -.12, p < .05). Ideology and need for cognition, entered on the second step, accounted for an additional 5.3% of the variance, and the F change was significant (p < .001). Need for cognition was a significant predictor of political knowledge (β = .23, p < .001). Gender (β = -.11, p < .05) remained a predictor at this step.

The conventional news-viewing motives, entered on step 3, contributed an additional 6.9% of variance in political knowledge, and the F change was significant (p < .001). Stimulating entertainment motivation (β = .15, p < .05) was a positive predictor of political knowledge. Pass time

(β = -.14, p < .05) and companionship motivations (β = -.21, p < .01) were significant negative predictors. Gender (β = -.14, p < .01) and need for cognition (β = .16, p < .01) remained significant predictors.

Exposure to and co-viewing of conventional news, entered at step 4, added an additional

0.1% to the variance. The F change was not significant (p = .871). Neither exposure, nor co- viewing were significant predictors. Gender (β = -.14, p < .01), need for cognition (β = .16, p < .01), stimulating entertainment (β = .16, p < .05), pass time (β = -.14, p < .05), and companionship (β = -.21, p < .01) motives remained significant predictors.

Cognitive and affective involvement, entered on step 5, contributed an additional 2.1% to the variance, but the F Change was not significant (p = .102). The anger (β = .22, p < .05) and sadness (β = -.17, p < .05) dimensions of affective involvement were significant predictors.

Neither cognitive involvement nor the happiness dimensions of the affective involvement were significant predictors. Gender (β = -.14, p < .05), need for cognition (β = .15, p < .05), stimulating entertainment (β = .18, p < .05), pass time (β = -.15, p < .05), and companionship (β = -.19, p < .01) motives remained significant predictors.

Consequently, after all variables were entered, the final equation accounted for 15.8% of the variance in political knowledge (see Table 13). The results suggest that men, high in need for cognition, who are motivated to watch conventional news on television for stimulating entertainment but not to pass time or for companionship reasons, and who have a tendency to become angry but not sad when watching the news, tend to have higher levels of political knowledge.

Table 13. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Knowledge in the Conventional News Viewing Context

Variable B SE B β

Step 1 Age .01 .03 .02 Gender -.49 .22 -.12 *

(continued)

Table 13. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Knowledge in the Conventional News Viewing Context (continued)

Variable B SE B β

Step 2 Age .01 .03 .01 Gender -.43 .22 -.11 * Need for cognition .94 .22 .23 *** Ideology -.15 .12 -.06

Step 3 Age .01 .03 .01 Gender -.57 .21 -.14 ** Need for cognition .66 .23 .16 ** Ideology -.15 .12 -.06 Motives Stimulating entertainment .38 .17 .15 * Pass time -.32 .14 -.14 * Information seeking .15 .16 .07 Companionship -.60 .18 -.21 **

Step 4 Age .01 .03 .01 Gender -.57 .22 -.14 ** Need for cognition .67 .23 .16 ** Ideology -.15 .12 -.07 Motives Stimulating entertainment .39 .18 .16 * Pass time -.31 .14 -.14 * Information seeking .17 .16 .08 Companionship -.61 .18 -.21 ** Exposure -.01 .02 -.03 Co-viewing -.01 .11 -.00

Step 5 Age .00 .03 .00 Gender -.54 .22 -.14 * Need for cognition .62 .24 .15 * Ideology -.15 .12 -.07 Motives Stimulating entertainment .44 .18 .18 * Pass time -.33 .14 -.15 * Information seeking .19 .17 .08 Companionship -.54 .20 -.19 ** (continued)

Table 13. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Knowledge in the Conventional News Viewing Context (continued)

Variable B SE B β

Exposure -.00 .02 -.01 Co-viewing .04 .11 .02 Cognitive involvement -.08 .17 -.03 Affective involvement Happiness -.19 .19 -.07 Anger .51 .20 .22 * Sadness -.47 .24 -.17 * Note: R = .12, R2 = .01, F(2, 319) = 2.28, p = .10 for step 1; R = .26, R2 = .07, ΔR2 = .05, F(4, 317) = 5.73, p < .001 for step 2; R = .37, R2 = .14, ΔR2 = .07, F(8, 313) = 6.16, p < .001 for step 3; R = .37, R2 = .14, ΔR2 = .00, F(10, 311) = 4.93, p < .001 for step 4; R = .40, R2 = .16, ΔR2 = .02, F(14, 307) = 4.12, p < .001 for step 5; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Predicting Political Self-Efficacy for Conventional News Viewing

Age and gender variables, entered on the first step, accounted for 0.7% of the variance in political self-efficacy. Neither was a significant predictor. Liberal ideology and need for cognition, entered on the second step, accounted for an additional 9.8% of the variance, and the F change was significant (p < .001). Only need for cognition was a significant predictor of political self-efficacy

(β = .30, p < .001).

The news-viewing motives entered on step 3 contributed an additional 4.2% to variance in political self-efficacy, and the F change was significant (p < .01). The information-seeking motivation (β = .16, p < .05) was the only significant predictor. Need for cognition (β = .25, p < .001) continued to be a significant predictor at this step.

Exposure to and co-viewing of conventional news entered at step 4 added an additional

0.3% to variance in political self-efficacy. However, the F change at this step was not significant

(p = .582). Neither exposure nor co-viewing were significant predictors. Need for cognition

(β = .24, p < .001) and information-seeking motivation (β = .14, p < .05) continued to be significant predictors.

Cognitive and affective involvement entered in step 5 contributed an additional 2.1% to variance in political self-efficacy, but the F Change was not significant (p = .108). Only the happiness (β = .15, p < .05) dimension of affective involvement was a new significant predictor at this step. Need for cognition (β = .26, p < .001) and information-seeking motivation (β = .16, p < .05) remained significant predictors.

The final equation accounted for 17.1% of the variance in political self-efficacy (see

Table 14). The results suggest that participants high in need for cognition, motivated to watch conventional news on television for information-seeking reasons, who experience happiness while watching the news, tend to have higher levels of political self-efficacy than do their peers.

Table 14. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Self-Efficacy in the Conventional News Viewing Context

Variable B SE B β

Step 1 Age -.02 .02 -.08 Gender -.07 .10 -.04

Step 2 Age -.02 .01 -.09 Gender -.07 .09 -.04 Need for cognition .55 .10 .30 *** Ideology .06 .05 .06

Step 3 Age -.02 .01 -.07 Gender -.10 .09 -.06 Need for cognition .45 .10 .25 *** Ideology .06 .05 .06

(continued)

Table 14. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Self-Efficacy in the Conventional News Viewing Context (continued)

Variable B SE B β

Motives Stimulating entertainment .11 .08 .11 Pass time -.10 .06 -.10 Information seeking .16 .07 .16 * Companionship -.10 .08 -.08

Step 4 Age -.02 .01 -.08 Gender -.10 .10 -.06 Need for cognition .44 .10 .24 *** Ideology .06 .05 .06 Motives Stimulating entertainment .11 .08 .10 Pass time -.10 .06 -.10 Information seeking .14 .07 .14 * Companionship -.10 .08 -.08 Exposure .01 .01 .05 Co-viewing .02 .05 .02

Step 5 Age -.02 .02 -.06 Gender -.05 .10 -.03 Need for cognition .47 .11 .26 *** Ideology .07 .05 .07 Motives Stimulating entertainment .10 .08 .09 Pass time -.10 .06 -.10 Information seeking .16 .08 .16 * Companionship -.11 .09 -.09 Exposure .01 .01 .05 Co-viewing .02 .05 .03 Cognitive involvement -.06 .08 -.06 Affective involvement Happiness .18 .08 .15 * Anger -.01 .09 -.01 Sadness -.15 .10 -.13 Note: R = .08, R2 = .01, F(2, 319) = 1.06, p = .347 for step 1; R = .32, R2 = .11, ΔR2 = .10, F(4, 317) = 9.29, p < .001 for step 2; R = .38, R2 = .15, ΔR2 = .04, F(8, 313) = 6.75, p <.001 for step 3; R = .39, R2 = .15, ΔR2 = .00, F(10, 311) = 5.49, p < .001 for step 4; R = .41, R2 = .17, ΔR2 = .02, F(14, 307) = 4.52, p < .001 for step 5; * p < .05, *** p < .001

Predicting Political Knowledge for Comedy News Viewing

Demographic variables -- age and gender -- entered on the first step, accounted for 1.4% of the variance in political knowledge. Male gender (β = -.12, p < .05) was a significant predictor.

Liberal ideology and need for cognition entered on the second step accounted for an additional 5.3% of the variance, and the F change was significant (p < .001). Only need for cognition (β = .23, p < .001) was a significant predictor of political knowledge. Male gender (β = -.11, p < .05) continued to be a predictor as well.

The comedy news-viewing motives entered on step 3 contributed an additional 6.5% to variance in political knowledge, and the F change was significant (p < .001). The escape motive

(β = -.28, p < .001) was the only new significant predictor. Male gender (β = -.12, p < .05) and need for cognition (β = .16, p < .01) continued to be predictors.

Exposure to and co-viewing of comedy news entered on step 4 added additional 0.1% to the variance. The F change at this step was not significant (p = .835). Neither exposure, nor co- viewing were significant predictors. Gender (β = -.12, p < .05), need for cognition (β = .16, p < .01), and escape motivation (β = -.29, p < .001) remained significant predictors.

Cognitive and affective involvement with comedy news entered in step 5 contributed an additional 0.4% to variance in political knowledge, but the F Change was not significant

(p = .860). No aspect of affective involvement, or cognitive involvement were significant predictors. Gender (β = -.12, p < .05), need for cognition (β = .15, p < .05, and escape motivation

(β = -.26, p < .01), remained significant predictors at this step.

The final equation accounted for 13.7% of the variance in political knowledge (see Table

15). The results suggest that males high in need for cognition and not motivated to watch

88 comedy news on television for reasons of escape tend to have higher levels of political knowledge than do their peers.

Table 15. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Knowledge in the Comedy News Viewing Context

Variable B SE B β

Step 1 Age .01 .03 .02 Gender -.46 .22 -.12 *

Step 2 Age .01 .03 .01 Gender -.43 .22 -.11 * Need for cognition .94 .22 .23 *** Ideology -.15 .12 -.06

Step 3 Age -.00 .03 .00 Gender -.49 .21 -.12 * Need for cognition .65 .24 .16 ** Ideology -.08 .12 -.64 Motives Relaxing entertainment .28 .15 .12 Escape -.66 .17 -.28*** Information learning -.13 .14 -.06 Pass time .09 .17 .04

Step 4 Age .00 .03 .00 Gender -.46 .22 -.12 * Need for cognition .65 .24 .16 ** Ideology -.08 .12 -.04 Motives Relaxing entertainment .26 .16 .11 Escape -.67 .17 -.29*** Information learning -.14 .14 -.06 Pass time .11 .17 .05 Exposure .01 .03 .03 Co-viewing -.04 .12 -.02

(continued)

Table 15. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Knowledge in the Comedy News Viewing Context (continued)

Variable B SE B β

Step 5 Age .01 .03 .01 Gender -.48 .22 -.12 * Need for cognition .60 .24 .15 * Ideology -.09 .13 -.04 Motives Relaxing entertainment .14 .21 .06 Escape -.61 .18 -.26 ** Information learning -.14 .17 -.06 Pass time .10 .17 .04 Exposure .01 .03 .03 Co-viewing -.06 .12 -.03 Cognitive involvement .11 .18 .05 Affective involvement Happiness .07 .17 .03 Anger .02 .32 .01 Sadness -.20 .31 -.08 Note: R = .12, R2 = .01, F(2, 319) = 2.28, p = .104 for step 1; R = .26, R2 = .07, ΔR2 = .05, F(4, 317) = 5.73, p < .001 for step 2; R = .36, R2 = .13, ΔR2 = .07, F(8, 313) = 5.97, p <.001 for step 3; R = .37, R2 = .13, ΔR2 = .00, F(10, 311) = 4.79, p < .001 for step 4; R = .37, R2 = .14, ΔR2 = .00, F(14, 307) = 3.48, p < .001 for step 5; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Predicting Political Self-Efficacy for Comedy News Viewing

Age and gender, entered on the first step, accounted for .7% of the variance in political efficacy. Neither was a significant predictor. Liberal ideology and need for cognition, entered on the second step, accounted for an additional 9.8% of the variance, and the F change was significant

(p < .001). Only need for cognition (β = .30, p < .001) was a significant new predictor of political self-efficacy.

The comedy news-viewing motives entered on step 3 contributed an additional 1.4% of variance in political self-efficacy, but the F change was not significant (p = .308). Only relaxing entertainment motivation (β = .13, p < .05) was a significant predictor. Need for cognition (β = .27,

90 p < .001) continued to be a strong predictor.

Exposure to and co-viewing of comedy news entered on step 4 added an additional 0.1% to the variance. The F change at this step was not significant (p = .859). Neither exposure, nor co-viewing was a significant predictor. Need for cognition (β = .26, p < .001) remained a significant predictor at this step. Relaxing entertainment motivation (β = .12, p = .075) ceased to be a significant predictor at this step.

Cognitive and affective involvement with comedy news entered in step 5 contributed an additional 1.0% to variance in political self-efficacy, but the F Change was not significant

(p = .464). No dimension of affective involvement, or cognitive involvement were significant predictors. Need for cognition (β = .26, p < .001) remained a strong significant predictor.

The final equation accounted for 13.0% of the variance in political self-efficacy (see

Table 16). The results suggest that participants high in need for cognition tended to have higher levels of political self-efficacy than did their peers.

Table 16. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Self-Efficacy in the Comedy News Viewing Context

Variable B SE B β

Step 1 Age -.02 .02 -.08 Gender -.07 .10 -.04

Step 2 Age -.02 .01 -.09 Gender -.07 .09 -.04 Need for cognition .55 .10 .30 *** Ideology .06 .05 .06

(continued)

Table 16. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Self-Efficacy in the Comedy News Viewing Context (continued)

Variable B SE B β

Step 3 Age -.02 .02 -.07 Gender -.06 .10 -.03 Need for cognition .48 .11 .27 *** Ideology .06 .06 .06 Motives Relaxing entertainment .14 .07 .13 * Escape -.08 .07 -.08 Information learning .02 .06 .02 Pass time -.01 .08 -.01

Step 4 Age -.02 .02 -.07 Gender -.06 .10 -.03 Need for cognition .49 .11 .26 *** Ideology .06 .06 .06 Motives Relaxing entertainment .13 .07 .12 Escape -.08 .07 -.08 Information learning .01 .06 .01 Pass time -.01 .08 -.01 Exposure .01 .01 .03 Co-viewing .01 .05 .01

Step 5 Age -.02 .02 -.08 Gender -.03 .10 -.02 Need for cognition .51 .11 .28 *** Ideology .07 .06 .07 Motives Relaxing entertainment .14 .09 .14 Escape -.11 .08 -.11 Information learning .07 .08 .07 Pass time -.00 .08 -.00 Exposure .01 .01 .04 Co-viewing .01 .05 .01 Cognitive involvement -.14 .08 -.15

(continued)

Table 16. Summary of Regression Analysis for Predicting Political Self-Efficacy in the Comedy News Viewing Context (continued)

Variable B SE B β

Affective involvement Happiness .05 .08 .05 Anger .10 .14 .09 Sadness -.03 .14 -.02

Note: R = .08, R2 = .01, F(2, 319) = 1.06, p = .347 for step 1; R = .32, R2 = .11, ΔR2 = .10, F(4, 317) = 9.29, p < .001 for step 2; R = .34, R2 = .12, ΔR2 = .01, F(8, 313) = 5.26, p < .001 for step 3; R = .35, R2 = .12, ΔR2 = .00, F(10, 311) = 4.22, p < .001 for step 4; R = .36, R2 = .13, ΔR2 = .01, F(14, 307) = 3.27, p < .001 for step 5; *** p < .001

Post Hoc Analyses – Impact of Programing Genre

A paired samples t-test revealed that participants watched significantly more conventional news (M = 5.18, SD = 4.84) than comedy news (M = 4.10, SD = 4.31); t(328) =

3.51, p = .001. The correlation between these two variables was low (r = .25, p < .001), suggesting that those who watched more of one news genre also tended to watch more of the other genre. In other words, general level of exposure to television might have been as important a factor as was exposure to different genres.

A paired samples t-test showed that participants watched comedy news with others

(M = 3.23, SD = 0.91) more often than they co-viewed conventional news (M = 3.02, SD = 0.96); t(328) = -3.29, p = .001. The correlation between these two variables was low (r = .24, p < .001).

A paired samples t-test demonstrated that participants were more cognitively involved with conventional news (M = 2.93, SD = 0.78) than with comedy news (M = 2.59, SD = 0.87); t(328) = 7.13, p < .001. The correlation between these two variables was moderate (r = .45, p < .001).

A paired samples t-test revealed that participants were happier while watching comedy news (M = 3.07, SD = 0.83) than they were during viewing of conventional news (M = 2.12,

SD = 0.70); t(328) = -17.94, p < .001. The correlation between these two variables was low

(r = .23, p < .001).

According to another paired samples t-test, participants tended to be angrier while watching conventional news (M = 2.14, SD = 0.84) than they were during viewing of comedy news (M = 1.66, SD = 0.78); t(328) = 10.57, p < .001). The correlation between these two variables was relatively high (r = .48, p < .001).

A paired samples t-test demonstrated that participants tended to be sadder while watching conventional news (M = 2.13, SD = 0.72) than they were during viewings of comedy news

(M = 1.66, SD = 0.79); t(328) = 10.51, p < .001). The correlation between these two variables was relatively high (r = .47, p < .001).

The regressions and t-tests generally revealed that there were important, if not significant, differences between the antecedents and some characteristics of conventional and comedy news viewing processes. However, because very few of these variables proved to be significant predictors of political knowledge and political self-efficacy, the basic problem contained in RQ7, whether the processes of viewing conventional and comedy news are qualitatively different will have to remain unresolved for the time being. I will discuss this issue at greater length in the next chapter.

Chapter IV

DISCUSSION

In this study, I investigated the influence of several potential predictor variables on political knowledge and political self-efficacy. Employing the Uses and Gratifications perspective as a starting model, I observed the contributions of specific demographic variables

(age, gender), background characteristics (need for cognition, political orientation), viewing motives, viewing context (news genre, co-viewing), and viewer involvement (cognitive, affective) to explaining political knowledge and political self-efficacy.

Although there is considerable research on various aspects and phases of the news viewing process, including some relationships among the variables used in my study

(e.g., Cao, 2008; Hanson & Haridakis, 2008; Rubin & Perse, 1987a; Young & Tisinger, 2006), a comprehensive look at the entire viewing context – from antecedents to exposure to effects -- have to my knowledge never been attempted before. Therefore, our understanding of this complicated and multifaceted phenomenon was necessarily limited to isolated fragments, most of the time involving only a handful of variables.

This is not to say that the model I used in this study is exhaustive in terms of the number of possible predictor variables and their interrelationships. On the contrary, there also was a certain element of arbitrariness in the selection of these variables and the methods of their assessment. However, I believe that the variables selected for this study represented basic phases/elements of the U&G model of television news viewing, as suggested in prior research

(e.g., Rubin, 2009). In the following paragraphs, I will discuss selected notable attributes of some of these variables, followed by individual (hypothesized) relationships between certain predictor variables. I will then review contributions of these variables together to explaining political

95 knowledge and self-efficacy. Finally, I will describe the limitations of this study, along with future directions for research.

Observations on Selected Individual Variables

Demographic variables used in this study were included to control for variance they may explain in political knowledge and political self-efficacy. However, during the interpretation of results, some interesting information about these two variables emerged, that warrants a brief comment in this section.

Age

The lower age limit for participants was set at 18 years. The sample was drawn from a population of undergraduate students taking a general introduction to communication course. It was therefore anticipated that participants would be young, perhaps most of them under 24 years old. As expected, the mean age of participants was 19.61 years old (SD = 3.18) and 90.3% of them were younger than 22 years of age.

The Pew Research Center (2012) reported that “in 2010, the average age of a regular evening news consumer was 53, seven years older than the average American” (Demographics section). Trends in news viewership, such as a decline in the number of young people enjoying the news, or that 18- to 24-year-olds constitute the age groups least likely among the adult population to get their news from television also have been reported (Pew, 2010). The fact that the sample in this study represented such a narrow segment of the general population of steadily declining television news viewers might have lowered the variance in collected data even more than expected.

Gender

In this study, males exhibited higher level of political knowledge than females, which is consistent with a number of findings in literature on the subject (e.g., Garand, Guynan, & Fouret,

2004; Liu & Eveland, 2005). One of the possible reasons for this difference could be the recently reported fact that “women consistently express more interest than men in stories about weather, health and safety, natural disasters and tabloid news. Men are more interested than women in stories about international affairs, Washington news and sports” (Pew, 2008). Also, women and men tend to get their news from different sources; women prefer network and local television news, while men are more open to online and radio sources (Pew, 2008; 2010).

Viewer Motives

Factor analysis to uncover underlying motive structure for news viewing identified four distinct motives for viewing conventional news and four motives for viewing comedy news.

There were certain similarities between the two sets of motives that warrant a closer look (See

Table 17).

Table 17. Comparison of Viewer Motivation Sets for Conventional and Comedy News

Conventional News Motives (M) Comedy News Motives (M)

Stimulating Entertainment (2.56) Relaxing Entertainment (3.50)

Companionship (1.71) Escape (2.30)

Pass Time (2.60) Pass Time (2.99)

Information Seeking (2.79) Information Learning (2.43)

Those similarities suggest, in my opinion, that viewers may consider both conventional and comedy news as functional alternatives. That is, each genre of news may be suitable to fulfill

97 the same simple needs, such as demand for information or to pass time, equally well. In addition, the Companionship (Conventional news) and the Escape (Comedy news) motives are actually more similar than the names I assigned may suggest, as they share two items from the Television

Viewing Motives Scale (Rubin, 1983) (“So I can get away from the rest of the family or others” and “Because it makes me feel less lonely”).

The only pronounced difference concerns the entertainment motive; entertainment was a much stronger motivation for watching comedy news than it was for watching conventional news. Viewers seemed to sense, or perhaps even know, that comedy news was going to fulfill their need to be entertained much better than would conventional news. Twenty or thirty years ago, when conventional television newscasts were not thought to provide much entertainment value for their viewers, this would not be surprising. Today, however, entertainment is clearly an important component of conventional news (e.g., Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007; Mutz (2001), and that is one of the reasons that the traditional boundaries between these two genres are softening.

Exposure

Participants reported that they watched conventional news more often than comedy news programs (slightly over 5 times per week for conventional news vs. slightly more than 4 times per week for comedy news). This is a significant difference (t = 3.51, p < .01), but its effect on the political knowledge and political self-efficacy of participants was negligible. However, the largest part (39%) of total exposure to conventional news was made up of exposure to local newscasts. If exposure to local news was eliminated from the analysis, the frequency with which participants watched conventional news would drop to 3.4 times per week.

This fact may be of some importance in explaining the fact that exposure, and especially exposure to conventional news, did not predict political knowledge or political self-efficacy,

98 which was contrary to my expectations. Indeed, local newscasts are rarely watched for political information comprising political knowledge measured in this study (that is, mostly national and some international news), and instead weather, sports, traffic, crime, and other locally relevant news (including local politics) dominate their agenda (e.g., Rosenstiel, Mitchell, Purcell,

& Rainie, 2011).

Cognitive Involvement

For both conventional and comedy news, participants indicated at best an average intensity of cognitive involvement with these programs. Even though viewers’ cognitive involvement was somewhat higher for conventional news (M = 2.93 for conventional news vs.

M = 2.59 for comedy news, where M = 3.00 indicates a neutral, or no opinion level), it still did not suggest anything beyond a rather passive kind of reception. This may be a result of people being generally overwhelmed and tired of the amount of complicated news with which they are constantly bombarded (e.g., Cohen, 1999). The amount of information that news viewers are required to process causes them to expend cognitive effort on the elaboration of only the news that is most relevant to their immediate lives and to avoid thinking about anything else. This can be considered a common reaction to information overload (e.g., Eppler & Mengis, 2004).

Affective Involvement

Participants’ level of affective involvement in news viewing was at best lukewarm. Only the happiness dimension of affective involvement with comedy news (M = 3.07) had a mean score above 3.0, which can be considered neutral. All other dimensions (happiness, anger, and sadness for conventional news, as well as anger and sadness for comedy news) averaged below neutral.

Perhaps this is a sign of times, as people could be either emotionally drained or simply accustomed to many situations reported in the news, and thus in a way inoculated to the news’

99 emotional content. Such tired reactions to continuous emotional stimuli (emotional burnout) have been known to researchers in organizational and health professions for some time (e.g.,

Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002).

Political Knowledge

On average, participants answered correctly about 6 out of 10 questions designed to probe their knowledge of current political facts/events. Perhaps this is not a bad result. However, it cannot be viewed as overly impressive either, considering that 2 of those 6 correctly answered questions should have been particularly easy for the demographic group from which this study’s sample was drawn. It should not be surprising, for example, that 94% of college underclassmen knew who founded Facebook (The other question answered correctly by 94% of respondents asked which issues the legislative act “No Child Left Behind” dealt with).

On the other hand, a question about partisan composition of the U.S. Congress was answered correctly by only 37% of respondents. It is probably symptomatic that 94% of people preparing to become leaders and take this country into the future know the name of the founder of a social network web site while only 50% of them are familiar with the name of the current

Speaker of the House of Representatives. However, as recently reported, the general U.S. population is not particularly well versed in matters of political importance. Those who get their political information mainly from television fare especially poorly (Pew, 2010).

Political Self-Efficacy

Participants in this study were generally slightly self-efficacious with regard to political issues (M = 3.18 on a 5-point scale, with a mid point scored 3, and labeled neutral). They recognized that government matters and politics are very complicated and difficult to understand

100 for an average citizen, but they nevertheless tended to believe that they had some influence over these matters through the exercise of their right to vote.

Political self-efficacy correlated with several other variables in this study. In the context of conventional news viewing, it was related to the need for cognition, the information-seeking motive, and cognitive involvement. Because self-efficacy is a trait associated with cognitive functions (e.g., Baumgartner and Morris, 2006), these relationships seem logical and to be expected. However, political self-efficacy was also related to the relaxing entertainment motive and the happiness dimension of affective involvement with comedy news. This may suggest that participants considered participation in political comedy, or ridiculing certain political events, as a way to influence politicians and political processes. Such an interpretation conforms to contemporary research linking political satire with political self-efficacy in general and political participation in particular (e.g., Cao & Brewer, 2008, Rosen, 2012).

Relationships Among Predictor Variables

The Uses and Gratifications (U&G) model of television viewing I used suggested several specific relationships among the variables included in my study. Some of those relationships were well researched in past projects (compare Rubin, 2009). In this study, I posed several hypotheses intended to validate relationships previously described in the literature, and a number of research questions about those that still await explanation.

Because prior research comparing the effects of viewing conventional and comedy news rarely looked at more than one or two antecedent variables (e.g., Feldman & Young, 2008; Fox,

Koloen, & Sahin, 2007), I resolved to compare elements of viewing conventional and comedy news in greater detail. Guided by U&G principles, I selected seven variables that I predicted could play a role in the formation of two different media effects. As a matter of fact, because the

101 affective involvement variable actually consisted of three separate dimensions (happiness, sadness, anger), and four distinct viewing motives were identified, I was able to observe relationships among 10 different variables that were thought to contribute to two types of media effects.

Inevitably, there were differences in those contributions, including some unexpected ones, as antecedent variables impacted effect variables differently, depending on the viewing context and the genre of news. To begin with, I found a positive relationship between watching comedy news for information learning and liberal political orientation (RQ1). I was able to support the hypothesis that need for cognition would be positively related to the information- seeking motives for watching conventional news (H2). I also found that need for cognition was positively related to watching comedy news for entertainment reasons (RQ2). Taken together, these results corroborate not only the U&G theory that different combinations of background characteristics and circumstances may relate to different motives for media use (compare Katz,

Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974; Rubin & Conway, 1991), but also support recent research findings.

For example, Hanson and Haridakis (2008) identified different motives for viewing television news items posted on YouTube, depending on the format of the program (information motives for news in traditional format and entertainment motives for news in comedy/satire format).

According to the tenets of U&G, different viewer motives usually lead to different media choices. For example, Rubin & Perse (1987b) linked information motivation with news viewing and entertainment motivation with comedy viewing. I was able to observe a similar pattern with the selection of different genres of news. As hypothesized, information-seeking motivation was related to viewing of conventional news (H3a), while relaxing entertainment motivation was linked to exposure to comedy news (H3b). On the other hand, exposure to conventional news

102 was also related to exciting entertainment motivation, and exposure to comedy news was linked to information learning motivation. This finding may suggest that both genres of news are beginning to be considered as functional alternatives by the viewers, as mentioned in the previous subsection. This could also be interpreted to be a result of a reciprocal relationship between motives and the selection of programming genres, as suggested by Bilandzic and

Rössler, (2004). According to these authors, different motives lead to different programing choices, but viewing of the chosen programs will probably influence what motives viewers will have for similar choices in the future. Viewing of these programs will likely reinforce the original motives but also give rise to different ones. Therefore, if a viewer who wanted to be entertained and chose a comedy news program to watch realizes that he or she can also learn desired information from this program, next time he/she will likely add information learning to the original entertainment motive.

Thus the results of this study appear to suggest that viewers select different genres of news according to differences in motives that are perhaps more unusual and nuanced than previously thought. For example, viewers may opt to watch conventional news out of an exciting entertainment motivation, and comedy news for reasons of relaxing entertainment. The difference between exciting entertainment and relaxing entertainment is not limited to semantic variance; the latter is most certainly a less active form than the former, and U&G research has consistently stressed the role audience activity plays in the formation of different media effects

(Rubin, 2009).

Viewers’ motives may also influence the patterns/circumstances of television viewing.

For example, I found that information-seeking motivation for viewing conventional news was negatively related to co-viewing of these programs (RQ3). In other words, it seems that if people

103 decide to watch conventional news programing because they hope to satisfy their need for information, they tend to watch these programs alone rather than in the presence of others.

Interesting conclusions can be drawn about the relationships between exposure to different genres of news and dimensions of viewer involvement with programs representing those genres. Both conventional (H4) and comedy (RQ4b) news viewing were related to cognitive involvement, and the strength of those relationships was practically the same

(moderate). This may suggest that viewers engage in relatively similar levels of thinking about issues presented in conventional and comedy news, perhaps because the issues presented in these programs are really identical. Such an interpretation would be consistent with Fox, Koloen, &

Sahin’s (2007) assertion that the amount of information presented in conventional and comedy newscasts is essentially the same.

There was no available research linking exposure to different news genres and affective involvement prior to this study. I was able to observe some relationships that could help us begin to understand this issue better. First of all, both conventional (RQ4a) and comedy (RQ4c) news viewing were related to the happiness dimension of affective involvement with these programs.

In addition, exposure to conventional news was linked to the sadness dimension (RQ4a). In other words, viewers tended to be happier when watching comedy news, and had mixed emotions

(happy and sad) while watching conventional news. One could interpret these relationships in the framework of Zillmann’s (1988) mood management theory, which posits that selection of communication messages (including different genres of programing) often serves as a mechanism for regulating mood states. Unfortunately, no notes on news content during the testing period were taken, and little is known about which features of news might have made the participants either happy or sad. Numerous content- or context-related factors might have

104 influenced participant’s emotional involvement as well. Overall, however, such results seem consistent with the traditional U&G model of differential patterns of exposure.

Interpretation of the negative relationship between co-viewing and the happiness dimension of affective involvement with comedy news (RQ5b) is more difficult. The more participants in this study watched comedy news with others, the less happily they were involved.

This result is counterintuitive, and I hesitate to venture an opinion as to why such an outcome.

Perhaps the key to this problem is in the fact that we do not know anything about who those

“others” were who watched comedy news with the participants. Perhaps even young people yearn for more quiet time spent alone. Or, thinking along the latest trends in communication patterns (e.g., Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010), perhaps young people are so used to communicating with others through a medium rather than directly, that they prefer to be alone with their phone, tablet, computer, or television set. For example, Livingston & Lopez (2010) reported that while 64% of non-Hispanic 16- and 17-year olds text their friends daily and 51% of them talk on their cell phones, only 33% actually meet with their friends in person (outside of school or work).

Relationships between dimensions of viewer involvement and the outcome variables were rather unexpected. For example, cognitive involvement with both conventional and comedy news was not linked to political knowledge (RQ6a). Prior to conducting the study, I was expecting that all three cognition-related variables in the U&G viewing model, that is, need for cognition, cognitive involvement and political knowledge, would be related. I hypothesized that need for cognition would be linked to cognitive involvement, and that hypothesis was supported.

Because of the scarcity of prior research on the relationship of cognitive involvement and political knowledge, I had to ask a research question about it, even though there seemed to be

105 logical reasons to expect that this relationship would be positive and significant. However, in this study, cognitive involvement with conventional or comedy news was not significantly related to political knowledge. The most likely interpretation of this result, in my opinion, would be that participants simply do not engage in much cognitive activity while watching news on television.

As mentioned in the previous subsection, the mean scores for cognitive involvement with both genres of news were below the level considered neutral. Some contemporary neuroscientists suggest that brain activity during television viewing is of an order lesser than what could be termed cognitive (e.g., Moore, 2001). Indeed, for both conventional and comedy news, the mean score on the measure of cognitive activity was below average amount of thinking. One possible reason for this could be that nowadays people frequently watch news only as a secondary activity, while cognitively engaged with other activities (for example, social network communications, etc.). Another, and more conventional interpretation stemming from U&G theory, could point to perhaps generally passive viewing of television by contemporary audiences.

Cognitive involvement with conventional news was linked to political self-efficacy

(RQ6b). At the same time, cognitive involvement with comedy news was not significantly related to self-efficacy (RQ6b). These results appear to conform to a model suggesting genre- based differences in levels of viewer involvement, which is consistent with past U&G research.

For example, Perse (1998) reported higher levels of viewers’ cognitive involvement with news than with sitcoms or soap operas. Thus, it appears that a combination of genre (in this study, conventional news) and higher levels of cognitive involvement (M = 2.93 for conventional news vs. M = 2.59 for comedy news) was required to have a connection to political self-efficacy.

106

As for relationships between affective involvement and media effect variables, once again, there are differences based on the genre of the news. No dimension of affective involvement with conventional news was linked to either political knowledge (RQ6c) or political self-efficacy (RQ6d). Perhaps this indicates a rather disengaged style viewers employ while watching this genre of news. Such an interpretation would fit Diddi and LaRose’s (2006) assertion that viewers engage themselves only in the act of selection of news programs to watch and then view those programs in a rather habitual manner, without much involvement. Also, motives for watching news, as identified in this study, suggest a not particularly active style of viewing these types of programs. Motives suggesting rather passive reception of the news -- pass time, escape and entertainment -- appear to outweigh the importance of information- seeking/learning motivation, which would indicate a more active style.

Of the three dimensions of affective involvement with comedy news included in this study, anger and sadness were linked to political knowledge (RQ6c) and happiness was found to be related to political self-efficacy (RQ6d). Feeling negative emotions such as anger may leave stronger impressions in a viewer’s memory and thus contribute to learning. Sobieraj and Berry’s

(2011) research on outrage in political discourse in blogs, talk radio and cable television news clearly points to the role of emotional dimension in political communications. These authors proposed that the use of outrageous (emotionally negative) appeals by creators of those communications may have important consequences for their recipients. For example, they may increase political self-efficacy by promoting participation, or decrease it by promoting distrust in government.

On the other hand, feeling happy probably leads to an increase in one’s self-esteem and therefore to one’s perceived ability to have an influence over one’s life. If self-efficacy is a form

107 of self-knowledge, as may be argued, then emotions can be both the key to its formation, as well as a hindrance (de Sousa, 2012). It seems reasonable to surmise that positive emotions, such as happiness, would act as facilitators and increase confidence, self-knowledge, and thus, self- efficacy. Indeed, Passyn and Sujan (2012) suggested that positive emotions, such as pride, increase self-efficacy for skill-intensive tasks, whereas some negative emotions (e.g., regret) increase self-efficacy for effort-intensive assignments.

The Model of News Viewing

The U&G model of television news viewing was tested in four separate regression analyses, depending on the genre of the news (conventional vs. comedy) and the media effects

(political knowledge vs. political self-efficacy). Generally, the findings of this study corroborated the main premise behind the model, which posits that a host of different factors beyond media- related reasons influence outcomes of media consumption. Although not all the factors I chose to examine played a statistically significant role in effects formation, I was able to detect influence exerted by background characteristics such as gender and need for cognition, by different sets of viewer motives, and by different levels and different aspects of viewer involvement during the act of news viewing.

Predicting Political Knowledge

In the context of conventional news viewing, political knowledge was predicted by male gender, need for cognition, three different viewer motives (stimulating entertainment, pass time, and companionship), and by the anger and the sadness dimensions of affective involvement. Pass time and companionship motives, and the sadness aspect of affective involvement were negative predictors. Political knowledge in the framework of comedy news, on the other hand, was predicted only by male gender, need for cognition and the escape motivation (negatively). It

108 appears that males higher in need for cognition may watch conventional news because they expect to be stimulated and entertained. If they select and then watch conventional newscasts in a more active way, that is, not out of boredom or to kill time, and if they are engaged in more active kinds of emotions (like anger, as opposed to sadness), they seem to gain some political knowledge from viewing of these programs. Males higher in need for cognition who decide to watch comedy news gain political knowledge unless they do it for reasons of escape, that is, a motivation suggesting rather habitual, as opposed to purposeful style of viewing. A more passive viewing style limits the absorption of this kind of knowledge.

As epitomized by participants’ self-reported levels of cognitive and affective involvement, audience activity during viewing of conventional news was clearly higher than during viewing of comedy news. Of all the forms and aspects of involvement measured, only the happiness aspect of affective involvement had a mean higher for viewing of comedy news; all others were higher for conventional news. In addition, aspects of affective involvement appeared as predictors of outcome variables for conventional news (anger and sadness for political knowledge and happiness for political self-efficacy), whereas no aspect of involvement was a predictor of effects of viewing comedy news. This again suggests a more habitual, ritualistic style of viewing of programs ordinarily expected to deliver entertainment, which is consistent with a whole line of research in the U&G tradition (e.g., Metzger & Flanagin, 2002; Rubin,

1984).

It is difficult to answer whether viewers acquire more political knowledge from watching conventional news rather than from comedy news, or vice versa. Differences in the pattern of predictor variables may suggest that increases in political knowledge viewers may gain from watching different genres of news programs also differ. For example, participants’ need for

109 cognition was a stronger predictor of political knowledge in the context of conventional news than in the context of comedy news. In addition, male participants’ level of political knowledge seemed to be tied to the viewing of comedy news, but not of conventional news.

There were also dissimilarities in the patterns of motives for viewing these two genres of news. It is interesting to note that out of four different motives that predicted political knowledge, three were negative predictors. Watching news to pass time, for companionship and for escape seem to detract from political knowledge, at least for males driven by need for cognition. However, in general, the differences in the contributions of variables selected for this study are likely rather small and probably unstable. Many more variables than the handful used in this study affect outcomes of viewing news on television. They work in unison, and changes in each of them may cause changes in others, and ultimately influence changes in media effects.

The variable nature of audience activity (Levy & Windahl, 1984) means that those small changes happen throughout the act of viewing, and thus the size and the exact cause of media effects, such as political knowledge are difficult to pinpoint.

Clearly, the strongest and most consistent predictor of political knowledge in this study was the need for cognition. This background psychological variable operates independently of audience activity variables and media-related influences, like exposure to different genres of programming, viewer motivation, or viewer involvement with programs watched. The importance of background characteristics within the tenets of Uses and Gratifications cannot be denied. Already in Katz et al.’s (1974) definition, the foundation of human communication is defined as “social and psychological origins” (p. 20). Rubin (2009) lists social and psychological circumstances of media use as one of six main directions in U&G research. Social and psychological factors are thought to initiate, guide and mediate communication behavior. The

110 fact that need for cognition played such a prominent role in the processes of consumption of television news is a reminder of the importance of viewers’ background characteristics to the overall U&G theory. This finding also validates, in my opinion, the basic assumptions of the

U&G model of limited effects resulting from exposure to television programming (Klapper,

1960). The complex nature of human traits and attitudes is often -- if not most of the time -- much more influential than the media and media-related influences.

Predicting Political Self-Efficacy

As for predicting political self-efficacy, in the framework of conventional news, only need for cognition, information-seeking motivation and the happiness dimension of affective involvement were significant predictors. The pattern of limited effects was even more evident in the context of comedy news, where only need for cognition predicted self-efficacy. These results, confirm once again that, at least as far as political self-efficacy is concerned, the influence of exposure to television news on its formation/size is probably not particularly large. Indeed, some scholars consider political self-efficacy as a specific kind of general self-efficacy, which is a product of past successes and experiences. As such, this may be considered as a trait rather than a phase or a state that fluctuates according to external circumstances and socializing influences of family, school, media, etc. (Gardner & Pierce, 1998). Therefore, it should not be particularly surprising that need for cognition, itself a psychological trait, was such a strong predictor of internal self-efficacy in this study. Also, it seems natural that if political self-efficacy is a trait linked to cognitive functions, then an instrumental viewing motivation, such as information seeking should be one of its predictors. Perhaps young people motivated to watch television news for the purpose of acquiring political information learn not so much particular facts about political processes as how to participate in those processes.

111

Genre-related Differences in Media Effects

The main goal of this study was to examine whether there are differences in such media effects as political knowledge or political self-efficacy based on the genre of television news watched by participants. A number of scholars, especially in political science, have posited that viewing conventional news and comedy news resulted in very similar outcomes, as exemplified by essentially equal levels of political knowledge (e.g., Brewer & Cao, 2006; Hollander, 2005) and political self-efficacy (e.g., Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Holbert, et al., 2007). Whereas the results of my study do not disprove that assertion, they suggest that the influence of watching television news on these particular effects may be in fact very small, and other sources like, such as viewers’ socio-psychological background (e.g., gender, need for cognition) have a greater impact. In other words, it is not surprising that researchers have trouble detecting any significant differences in political knowledge and political self-efficacy resulting from simply viewing different genres of news. As Althaus, Cizmar, & Gimpel’s (2009) suggested, people’s choice of the source of political information is based on array of influences that can be classified into individual, contextual, and structural factors. It appears that, at least with regards to young viewers like those participating in my study, contextual and structural factors are less important than individual, socio-psychological ones.

The forces at play in the process of media consumption and media effects are not only numerous, but also constantly evolving. Human populations change and changes occur in individual viewers’ characteristics, in viewer culture/behavior and in the structure of the media.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that the conclusions drawn by researchers from studies of media effects change over time, or that some of their findings seem to be confusing or even contradictory. There were a number of such findings in this study. For example, contrary to what

112 common sense or logic would suggest, viewing conventional news for information-related reasons did not function as a predictor of political knowledge. Cognitive involvement did not emerge as a predictor of political knowledge either.

Interpretation of this result is difficult. Perhaps cognitive activity is simply not particularly vigorous during viewing of the conventional news. As I mentioned earlier, participants’ level of cognitive involvement was rather low, or, in any case, below average.

People may be getting their information elsewhere, before they turn the TV on, and they use the news broadcasts only as a monitoring device of sorts, to make sure that they do not miss anything of importance. Another likely cause of this outcome could be the fact that television is often thought to provide relatively little information, especially in comparison to newspapers and the Internet (e.g., Druckman, 2005). According to Chaffee and Frank (1996), people who are actively seeking information consult newspapers rather than television. Participants in this study did not appear to be particularly active (cognitively involved) during the act of viewing.

A generation ago, passive viewing styles, characterized by low involvement (viewer activity) and viewing motives such as pass time, escape and companionship were thought to apply mostly to entertainment and generally lightweight types of programing. News, on the other hand, was usually watched for instrumental reasons such as information seeking, and required more active patterns of consumption, characterized by higher selectivity and higher involvement

(Rubin, 1984). News and comedy did not mix. Today, it seems, the boundaries between news and comedy on television are slowly dissolving and television in general is becoming associated exclusively with entertainment. Those who still care about getting the news turn to the few remaining newspapers (usually online) rather than to network news or even to cable news channels. It seems that the television medium is fast becoming the (entertaining) message.

113

On the other hand, it is also entirely within the realm of possibility that some of those unusual or difficult to interpret results originated in the peculiarities and limitations of the design of this study.

Limitations and Future Directions

I believe that this study provides important insights into the nature of people’s consumption of television news. However, I am also aware that this investigation does have some significant limitations. For example, there are questions about the overall design of this study, as well as some measurement concerns.

Limitations of the Sample

First of all, the limitations pertaining the sample selected for this study needs to be addressed.

It was a convenience sample, with all its customary advantages and drawbacks. Although convenience samples utilizing undergraduate students are very common in research projects conducted at academic institutions, a number of qualifications related to this issue must be acknowledged when interpreting the results. The most important drawback of my use of a convenience sample is that the results of the study may be difficult, or even impossible, to generalize.

Some characteristics of my sample appear to render it rather ill-suited for a study of political knowledge. For example, most of my participants were so young that they most likely never took part in any elections before, and were perhaps just entering the age of political socialization. Also, a large percentage of them reported to be very light television news viewers (at least during the week before administration of the survey). The level of their political knowledge was not particularly impressive either, and only average at best.

Therefore, the results of this study can only provide some insights into the issues under investigation, and perhaps offer some suggestions for researchers working with true random samples.

Future research, if it is to yield results representative of the entire population of television news

114 viewers, should focus on finding samples that would not be limited to such a narrow demographic group as my sample did.

Although the size of the sample was larger than the recommended 10 subjects per item for the scale containing the most items (in this case, 27 items), it is possible that that number still did not provide enough statistical power for some of the tests. Future research may be well advised to consider discussion of power issues in the design phase of the study.

Limitations of the Study Design

The design of this study featured a measuring instrument that asked participants to respond two times to a considerable number of questions. First, with regard to viewing of conventional news programs, and secondly, with respect to comedy news. Those questions comprised scales adopted to assess viewing motives, co-viewing, cognitive involvement and affective involvement. Altogether, there were 48 questions that participants had to answer twice.

This might have resulted in threats to validity, as participants may have been conditioned to the second round of questions, and possibly even biased. A number of them probably got bored, tired, or even annoyed, which could have influenced their answers. There was some evidence in data gathered that pointed to automatic answering. Cases suspected of this flaw were eliminated from further analysis, as were instances when participants abandoned the questionnaire completely after reaching a point where repetition began. However, there could be no certainty that some cases that remained did not contain similar problems. Therefore, researchers pursuing similar projects in the future should consider alternative designs. Perhaps a design featuring comparisons based on two samples could be one answer. Another solution would be a design containing a filter directing participants to answer questions pertaining to only one news genre, depending on the comparison of the level of their exposure to different genres. If such a design

115 had been employed in this study, for example, the number of questions in the survey would have been cut by 45 and there would have been no repeated questions.

There also were potential limitations caused by particular conceptualizations of some variables used in the study. For example, the list of comedy programs included in the measure of exposure, in addition to true parody news productions such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, contained talk shows and sketch/variety shows that might devote only a small segment to political news and the remainder of material to non-political or apolitical humor. In order to address this potential deficiency, future research may need to limit the programs to be included in the parody news category, or perhaps consider using experimental designs in which only fragments of comedy shows dealing with information of political nature are shown to participants.

My conceptualization of co-viewing behavior was likely somewhat outdated as I considered only situations where other people were actually present in the room/area where viewing of news was occurring. Thus I probably excluded a fairly popular practice of what could be termed “long-distance co-viewing,” that is, situations when viewers discuss programs they are watching with their family or friends via telephone or computer mediated communications.

Those could be synchronous or semi-synchronous, such as texting, instant messaging, and

Internet chat rooms. Researchers looking at television viewing in the future should probably consider including this relatively new and interesting practice in the range of behaviors constituting the co-viewing phenomenon.

Limitations of Instrument Sensitivity

One of the surprising results of this study was a relatively low level of viewer involvement reported by participants (All eight dimensions of involvement had average scores

116 smaller than the mid-point of the scale). One possible explanation for this could be that contemporary viewing styles are probably more casual, often even accidental, rather than premeditated and purposeful (e.g., Webster, 2009). It is a known fact that television viewing is nowadays oftentimes a secondary activity (while surfing the Internet, preparing or eating meals, conversing with family and friends, etc.), resulting in less cognitive and affective viewer involvement (e.g., Wonneberger, Schoenbach, & van Meurs, 2011). It may be advisable for future research to perhaps reconsider Levy and Windahl’s (1984) original operationalization of involvement as lack of distractions, and develop a measure to assess viewer involvement more precisely, better reflecting viewing circumstances.

The two measures of involvement used in this study might not have been the best suited for this study for other reasons as well. For example, Perse’s (1990b) measure used in this study to assess cognitive involvement, probed only its elaboration (that is, detailed thinking). The other two aspects, attention and comprehension, were not measured. Post factum, one has to wonder if perhaps attention should have been assessed instead of elaboration. As was discussed above, participants’ lack of sustained attention to the news might have resulted in low elaboration and, subsequently, low cognitive involvement. Future research should address this issue by perhaps adopting an altogether different measure of cognitive involvement that would probe all dimensions of this phenomenon, or supplementing measures of attention and comprehension to the measure of elaboration.

Similarly, Perse’s (1990b) measure of affective involvement that I used might have contained deficiencies that affected the overall quality of results. First, the three dimensions chosen to represent affective involvement (happiness, anger, sadness), although seemingly reasonable, might not have covered enough of a range of the concept. There may be other

117 dimensions of affective involvement not tapped by this index, such as empathy, liking, or disbelief that might have provided additional, perhaps critical variance to the data. It may be advisable for future research to investigate the possibility of developing a measure of affective involvement that would probe the concept as a whole rather than individual, arbitrarily selected dimensions.

Political orientation and co-viewing did not play any significant role in predicting outcome variables chosen for this study. For example, participants reported no clear pattern of viewing conventional news alone versus with others. This might have reflected reality, which is often less exciting than inexperienced researchers would like, or it might have resulted from the shortcomings of the measures. Both these measures were single item instruments. Because of possible problems with validity, such measures are thought to be somewhat problematic in behavioral research (e.g., Gardner, Cummings, & Pierce, 1998). They are considered more suitable for detection of large, or at least moderate dissimilarities, and not subtle differences that one would expect in variables that are part of a process as fluid and complex as television viewing. In addition, the simple, single item measure of political orientation may not have covered the entire conceptual domain of this variable. Researchers attempting projects similar to this one in the future should consider adopting or developing multiple-item instruments with unquestionable validity in order to measure these concepts.

Another possible reason for a relatively low number of variables functioning as predictors of political knowledge and self-efficacy could be related to the statistical procedures used in this study. I elected to use regression analysis. A path analysis would certainly reflect the news viewing process as more complex and multifaceted, and perhaps help justify the selection of

118 some variables used this study a little bit better. Future research could use path analysis and/or structural equation modeling techniques to look at possible causal relationships among variables.

Finally, the measures of exposure to television news used in this study yielded results that were not correlated with other variables considered. These measures were developed specifically for this study, but they were patterned on similar instruments successfully used in past research, including projects within the U&G tradition (e.g., Haridakis, 2002; Perse, 1990b; Rubin, 1983).

They were simple, straightforward instruments, with enough face validity to justify their use.

However, the fact that neither exposure to conventional news nor to comedy news appear to be related to other variables measured in the study was disappointing enough for me to propose that perhaps scholars engaged in future research projects should consider using other methods to assess frequencies of viewing and/or other aspects of viewers’ exposure to television programs

(for example, duration, patterns of continuity and interruptions, etc.). New technologies, such as various forms of “people meters” (e.g., Mora, Ho, & Krider, 2011), could be adapted for this purpose, perhaps providing researchers with data that is not only more accurate, but also more nuanced in terms of the number of aspects of the exposure phenomenon covered.

Conclusion

In spite of the limitations just described, this study helped me achieve some important goals and even suggest new avenues for future research. I succeeded in corroborating the basic

U&G model of television news consumption by demonstrating that 1) various antecedents, including socio-psychological background characteristics, motives, and viewer involvement work together to influence media effects, and 2) those individual characteristics are probably more influential than context and media related factors, such as programing genres. I also identified and compared the main reasons people have for watching conventional and comedy

119 news. Those reasons, despite some genre-related differences, are nevertheless surprisingly similar; this may be considered as a sign that broadcasters’ move toward more entertaining fare in traditional (conventional) newscasts is slowly erasing differences between news and entertainment in the minds of the viewers. I proposed that television’s influence on young people’s political knowledge and political self-efficacy is probably very small, if not outright negligible. Instead, these effects may be attributable more to such psychological traits as need for cognition than to frequency of watching the news. Other sources of information, including different media, might have played a more substantial role as well. Thus, the model of functional alternatives and limited effects of television viewing, the cornerstone of the Uses and

Gratifications perspective, once again appears to have been confirmed.

Many researchers, especially those outside the U&G tradition, have long neglected to study media effects in the context of the entire process of media use that leads to the formation of those effects. I hope that this study will encourage scholars researching television viewing in the future to look at the issue of effect formation in all its complexity, however difficult and frustrating that may be. Although the importance of television news has diminished somewhat over the last couple of decades, television continues to be the most significant source of easily digestible information about political matters. Even if television news has a limited effect on the depth of viewers’ political knowledge and self-efficacy, it may serve as a surveillance tool to help maintain these important attributes. Therefore, its role in preparing citizens for participation in the democratic process may still be very important, and as such, be worthy of research efforts similar to this one.

120

Appendix A

Kent State University Consent Form

Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study Kent State University

Study Title: Television news and comedy viewing

Principle Investigator: Christopher Hariasz, Doctoral Candidate School of Communication Studies Taylor Hall; Kent State University; Kent, OH 44242 Phone: (330) 310-7551; E-mail: [email protected]

You are being invited to participate in a research study. This consent form will provide you with information on the research project, what you will need to do, and the associated risks and benefits of the research. Your participation is voluntary. Please read this form carefully. It is important that you fully understand the research in order to make an informed decision.

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to understand college students’ sources of news and political information. To that end, this survey asks questions about you and your television news and comedy viewing habits, including your reasons for watching particular programs, your reactions to those programs, time spent viewing them, and your general knowledge of current news. In addition, limited background characteristics and demographic data will be gathered.

Procedures: If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey about yourself and your television news and comedy viewing. The survey should take about 30 minutes to complete.

Benefits: This research will not benefit you directly. However, your participation in this study will help us to better understand the uses and effects of viewing various kinds of television programs.

Risks & Discomforts: There are no anticipated risks beyond those encountered in everyday life.

Privacy & Confidentiality: Your study related information will be kept confidential within the limits of the law. Research participants will not be identified in any publication or presentation of research results; only aggregate data will be used.

Compensation: You will receive 15 research participation points for participating in this study. After completion of the survey, you will be asked to provide your name and e-mail address for the provision of research points for your Introduction to Human Comm. course. This information will be stored separately from your survey responses so you will not be able to be connected back to your responses. All information you provide on the survey will remain

121 completely confidential and contact information will be destroyed after research participation credits have been awarded.

Voluntary Participation: Taking part in this research study is entirely up to you. You may choose not to participate or you may discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.

Contact Information: If you have any questions or concerns about this research, you may contact Christopher Hariasz at (330) 310-7551 or Dr. Paul Haridakis at (330) 672-0174. This project has been approved by the Kent State University Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant or complaints about the research, you may call the IRB at (330) 672-2704.

Consent Statement: You must be 18 years of age or older and watch television to participate in this study. If you are 18 years of age or older, understand the statements above, and freely consent to participate in this study, please click on the “Next” button to begin the survey. Clicking the “Next” button constitutes your consent to participate. You may print a copy of this consent form. Once you submit your consent, you will be directed to the first page of the study. If you do not feel comfortable participating in this study, you may stop at any time.

“Next”

122

Appendix B

Demographics Questionnaire

Please answer the following demographic questions. Your answers will remain confidential and will not be shared with anyone.

1. How old are you as of your last birthday? ………………

2. What is your gender? Female ………. Male ………

123

Appendix C

Ideology Index (Adapted from Baumgartner & Morris, 2006 and Moy, Xenos, & Hess, 2005)

Instructions: On the following scale, please mark where you consider yourself to be with regard to political issues.

Very Liberal Neutral Conservative Very Liberal Conservative 1 2 3 4 5

124

Appendix D

Need for Cognition Scale (after Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F., 1983)

Instructions: Please indicate your agreement with the following statements by marking your choice on the appropriate scale.

Not at all like me not like me no opinion like me very much like me 1 2 3 4 5

[Note: the above scale will be provided after each of the five items]

1. I would prefer complex to simple problems. 2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking. 3. Thinking is not my idea of fun.* 4. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.* 5 I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely chance I will have to think in depth about something.* 6. I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours. 7. I only think as hard as I have to.* 8. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.* 9. I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them.* 10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me. 11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems. 12. Learning new ways to think does not excite me very much.* 13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve. 14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me. 15. I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought. 16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.* 17. It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works.* 18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.

* Reverse scoring is used on this item.

125

Appendix E

Television Viewing Motives Scale (Rubin, A. M., 1983; 1994)

Instructions: Here are some reasons that people have given for why they watch news on television. Please circle the number to indicate whether each reason is not at all (1), not much (2), somewhat (3), a lot (4), or exactly (5) like your own reason for watching television news.

I watch television…

Relaxation 1. Because it relaxes me. 2. Because it allows me to unwind. 3. Because it’s a pleasant rest.

Companionship 1. So I won’t have to be alone. 2. When there is no one else to talk to or be with. 3. Because it makes me feel less lonely.

Habit 1. Just because it’s there. 2. Because I just like to watch. 3. Because it’s a habit, just something I do.

Pass Time 1. When I have nothing better to do. 2. Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored. 3. Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time.

Entertainment 1. Because it entertains me. 2. Because it’s enjoyable. 3. Because it amuses me.

Social Interaction 1. Because it’s something to do when friends come over. 2. So I can talk with other people about what’s on. 3. So I can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching.

Information 1. Because it helps me learn things about myself and others. 2. So I can learn how to do things, which I haven’t done before. 3. So I could learn about what could happen to me.

126

Arousal 1. Because it’s thrilling. 2. Because it’s exciting. 3. Because it peps me up.

Escape 1. So I can forget about school, work, or other things. 2. So I can get away from the rest of the family or others. 3. So I can get away from what I’m doing.

Note: Category labels will be removed and items arranged randomly.

127

Appendix F

Exposure to Television News Programs (Adapted from Haridakis, 2002; 2006)

1. In the past week, how many times did you watch television news that can be considered traditional/conventional, such as network evening news (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS), cable news (CNN, CNBC, BBC), local newscasts (Channels 3, 5, 8, 19), etc.? ………………………

2. In the past week, how many times did you watch television news that can be considered parody/comedy, such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Late Show with David Letterman, Saturday Night Live, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Jimmy Kimmel Show, etc.?

……………………….

128

Appendix G

Co-Viewing Index (Adapted from Yang & Nathanson, 2005)

Instructions: On the following scale, please mark how often you watch news programs alone versus with other people (family or friends).

Always Mostly No pattern Mostly Always Alone alone really with others with others 1 2 3 4 5

129

Appendix H

Cognitive Involvement Scale (adapted from Perse, 1990b; Kim & Rubin, 1997)

Instructions: Please indicate your agreement with the following statements about your reactions to the news by marking your choice on the appropriate scale.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often 1 2 3 4 5

[Note: the above scale will be provided after each of the five items]

1. I think about what should be done with respect to the issue in the program. 2. I think about the story in the program over and over again. 3. I think about what the content of the program means to me and my family. 4. I think about what the content of the program means to other people. 5. I think about how the story in the program relates to other things I know.

130

Appendix I

Affective Involvement Scale (Adapted from Perse, 1990b)

Instructions: Please respond to the following questions by marking your choices on the provided scale.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often 1 2 3 4 5

[Note: The above scale will be provided after each item]

When watching television news programming…

Happy 1. I feel a warm inner glow. 2. I feel like smiling. 3. I feel a warm excitement. 4. I feel happy. 5. I feel like laughing.

Angry 6. I feel my blood pressure go up. 7. I feel like clenching my fists. 8. I feel like clenching my teeth. 9. I feel my face get tight, tense, and hard. 10. I get angry.

Sad 11. I feel a lump in my throat. 12. I feel myself getting choked up. 13. My heart seems to ache. 14. Tears come to my eyes. 15. I feel sad.

131

Appendix J

News IQ Quiz (April 26, 2011) Pew Research Center

Instructions: Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. Please circle your choices of answers.

1. Moammar Gadhafi is the leader of which of these countries?* - Libya - Egypt - Saudi Arabia - China

2. Is the current speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives? - Mitch McConnell - Newt Gingrich - John Boehner - Nancy Pelosi

3. The Obama administration is proposing revisions to the “No Child Left Behind” Act. That legislation deals with which of these issues? - Transportation - Education - Adoption - Nutrition

4. Is the national unemployment rate as reported by the government currently closer to: - 5% - 9% - 15% - 21%

5. On which of these activities does the U.S. government currently spend the most money? - Education - Medicare - Interest on the national debt - Scientific research

132

6. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, what percentage of Americans are obese? - 5% - 10% - 25% - 50%

7. Who founded the social networking site called Facebook? - Bill Gates - Jon Stewart - Steve Jobs - Mark Zuckerberg

8. In the U.S. Congress, Republicans have a majority in: - The House of Representatives only - The Senate only - Both the House and Senate - Neither the House nor the Senate

9. Is Hillary Clinton: - Secretary of State - A senator - A governor - An ambassador

10. What issue was the main focus of recent protests and political debates in Wisconsin? - Same-sex marriage - The death penalty - Union rights for public employees - Agriculture subsidies

11. Which source of energy provides the most electricity in the U.S.? - Hydroelectric - Nuclear - Coal - Wind

* This question was not included in the survey administered to the participants.

133

Appendix K

Political Self-Efficacy Scale (Holbert et al., 2007)

Instructions: Please indicate your agreement with the following statements by marking your choice on the scale provided.

1. Whether I vote or not has no influence on what politicians do. Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5

2. People like me don’t have any say about what the government does. Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5

3. Sometimes government and politics seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what is going on Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5

134

Appendix L

Television News Survey

Instructions: Please follow specific instructions before each section and answer all questions honestly and to the best of your ability. Thank you.

1. How old are you as of your last birthday? ……………….

2. What is your gender? Female ☐ Male ☐

Instructions: On the following scale, please mark where you consider yourself to be with regard to political issues.

3. Very Liberal Neutral Conservative Very Liberal Conservative ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Instructions: Please indicate your agreement with the following statements by marking your choice on the appropriate scale.

4. I would prefer complex to simple problems.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

5. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

6. Thinking is not my idea of fun.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

7. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

135

8 I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely chance I will have to think in depth about something.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

9. I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

10. I only think as hard as I have to.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

11. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

12. I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

13. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

14. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

15. Learning new ways to think does not excite me very much.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

16. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

17. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

136

18. I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

19. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

20. It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

21. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.

Not at all like me Not like me No opinion Like me Very much like me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Instructions: Please indicate your agreement with the following statements by marking your choice on the scale provided.

22. Whether I vote or not has no influence on what politicians do.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

23. People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

24. Sometimes government and politics seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what is going on

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

137

Instructions: Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. Please check your choices of answers.

25. Is the current speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives? ☐ Mitch McConnell ☐ Newt Gingrich ☐ John Boehner ☐ Nancy Pelosi

26. The Obama administration is proposing revisions to the “No Child Left Behind” Act. That legislation deals with which of these issues? ☐ Transportation ☐ Education ☐ Adoption ☐ Nutrition

27. Is the national unemployment rate as reported by the government currently closer to: ☐ 5% ☐ 9% ☐ 15% ☐ 21%

28. On which of these activities does the U.S. government currently spend the most money? ☐ Education ☐ Medicare ☐ Interest on the national debt ☐ Scientific research

29. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, what percentage of Americans are obese? ☐ 5% ☐ 10% ☐ 25% ☐ 50%

30. Who founded the social networking site called Facebook? ☐ Bill Gates ☐ Jon Stewart ☐ Steve Jobs ☐ Mark Zuckerberg

138

31. In the U.S. Congress, Republicans have a majority in: ☐ The House of Representatives only ☐ The Senate only ☐ Both the House and Senate ☐ Neither the House nor the Senate

32. Is Hillary Clinton: ☐ Secretary of State ☐ A senator ☐ A governor ☐ An ambassador

33. What issue was the main focus of recent protests and political debates in Wisconsin? ☐ Same-sex marriage ☐ The death penalty ☐ Union rights for public employees ☐ Agriculture subsidies

34. Which source of energy provides the most electricity in the U.S.? ☐ Hydroelectric ☐ Nuclear ☐ Coal ☐ Wind

35. Instructions: In the past week, how many times did you watch each of the television news programs listed below? Please write in the number that best reflects how often you watched these programs. (For example, if during the past week you watched the program five times, write “5” in the space provided. If in the past week you did not watch the particular program at all, please write “0” in the space provided.)

News programs Number of times watched in the past week

ABC (World News with Diane Sawyer) ……. times

NBC (Nightly News with Brian Williams) ……. times

CBS (Evening News with Scott Pelley) ……. times

PBS (NewsHour) ……. times

BBC (World News) ……. times

139

CNN (Newsroom) ……. times

FNC (The Fox Report) ……. times

Headline News (Prime News) ……. times

Local newscasts (for example, channel 2 in Kent, channels 3, 5, 8, & 19 in Cleveland, etc.) ……. times

36. Instructions: On the following scale, please mark how often you watch news programs listed above alone versus with other people (for example, family or friends).

Always Mostly No pattern Mostly Always Alone alone really with others with others ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Instructions: Here are some reasons that people have given for why they watch news on television. Please mark the number to indicate whether each reason is not at all (1), not much (2), somewhat (3), a lot (4), or exactly (5) like your own reason for watching television news programs listed above.

I watch the above listed news programs …

37. Because I just like to watch. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

38. So I can talk with other people about what’s on. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

39. Because it allows me to unwind. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

40. Because it’s exciting. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

41. Because it helps me learn things about myself and others. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

140

42. When there is no one else to talk to or be with. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

43. So I can get away from the rest of the family or others. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

44. Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

45. Because it’s enjoyable. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

46. So I can forget about school, work, or other things. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

47. Because it makes me feel less lonely. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

48. Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

49. So I can learn how to do things, which I haven’t done before. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

50. Because it’s something to do when friends come over. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

51. Because it relaxes me. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

141

52. Because it’s a habit, just something I do. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

53. Because it entertains me. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

54. Because it’s thrilling. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

55. So I can get away from what I’m doing. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

56. So I can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

57. Because it’s a pleasant rest. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

58. Just because it’s there. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

59. Because it peps me up. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

60. So I could learn about what could happen to me. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

61. So I won’t have to be alone. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

142

62. When I have nothing better to do. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

63. Because it amuses me. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Instructions: Please indicate your agreement with the following statements about your reactions to the news programs listed above by marking your choice on the appropriate scale

When I watch the above listed news programs…

64. I think about what should be done with respect to the issue in the program.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

65. I feel like smiling.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

66. My heart seems to ache.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

67. I think about the story in the program over and over again.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

68. I feel like clenching my teeth.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

69. I feel happy.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

70. I feel sad.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

143

71. I think about how the story in the program relates to other things I know.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

72. I get angry.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

73. I think about what the content of the program means to other people.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

74. I feel my blood pressure go up.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

75. I feel a warm excitement.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

76. Tears come to my eyes.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

77. I feel my face get tight, tense, and hard.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

78. I feel a warm inner glow.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

79. I feel like clenching my fists.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

80. I feel a lump in my throat.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

144

81. I feel like laughing.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

82. I think about what the content of the program means to me and my family.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

83. I feel myself getting choked up.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

84. Instructions: In the past week, how many times did you watch each of the television comedy programs listed below? Please write in the number that best reflects how often you watched these programs. (For example, if during the past week you watched the program five times, write “5” in the space provided. If in the past week you did not watch the particular program at all, please write “0” in the space provided.)

Comedy news programs Number of times watched in the past week

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ……. times

The Colbert Report ……. times

The Tonight Show with Jay Leno ……. times

The Late Show with David Letterman ……. times

Saturday Night Live ……. times

Real Time with Bill Maher ……. times

Late Night with Jimmy Fallon ……. times

Jimmy Kimmel Live! ……. times

Conan ……. times

The Rachel Maddow Show ……. times

145

Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld ……. times

85. Instructions: On the following scale, please mark how often you watch comedy news programs listed above alone versus with other people (for example, family or friends).

Always Mostly No pattern Mostly Always Alone alone really with others with others ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Instructions: Here are some reasons that people have given for why they watch comedy news on television. Please mark the number to indicate whether each reason is not at all (1), not much (2), somewhat (3), a lot (4), or exactly (5) like your own reason for watching television comedy programs listed above.

I watch the above listed comedy news programs …

I watch the above listed news programs …

86. Because I just like to watch. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

87. So I can talk with other people about what’s on. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

88. Because it allows me to unwind. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

89. Because it’s exciting. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

90. Because it helps me learn things about myself and others. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

91. When there is no one else to talk to or be with. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

146

92. So I can get away from the rest of the family or others. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

93. Because it passes the time away, particularly when I’m bored. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

94. Because it’s enjoyable. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

95. So I can forget about school, work, or other things. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

96. Because it makes me feel less lonely. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

97. Because it gives me something to do to occupy my time. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

98. So I can learn how to do things, which I haven’t done before. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

99. Because it’s something to do when friends come over. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

100. Because it relaxes me. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

101. Because it’s a habit, just something I do. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

147

102. Because it entertains me. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

103. Because it’s thrilling. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

104. So I can get away from what I’m doing. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

105. So I can be with other members of the family or friends who are watching. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

106. Because it’s a pleasant rest. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

107. Just because it’s there. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

108. Because it peps me up. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

109. So I could learn about what could happen to me. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

110. So I won’t have to be alone. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

111. When I have nothing better to do. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

112. Because it amuses me. Not at all Not much Somewhat A lot Exactly ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

148

Instructions: Please indicate your agreement with the following statements about your reactions to the comedy news programs listed above by marking your choice on the appropriate scale.

When I watch the above listed news programs…

113. I think about what should be done with respect to the issue in the program.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

114. I feel like smiling.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

115. My heart seems to ache.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

116. I think about the story in the program over and over again.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

117. I feel like clenching my teeth.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

118. I feel happy.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

119. I feel sad.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

120. I think about how the story in the program relates to other things I know.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

121. I get angry.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

149

122. I think about what the content of the program means to other people.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

123. I feel my blood pressure go up.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

124. I feel a warm excitement.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

125. Tears come to my eyes.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

126. I feel my face get tight, tense, and hard.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

127. I feel a warm inner glow.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

128. I feel like clenching my fists.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

129. I feel a lump in my throat.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

130. I feel like laughing.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

131. I think about what the content of the program means to me and my family.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

150

132. I feel myself getting choked up.

Never Sometimes No opinion Often Very often ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Thank you.

151

References

Althaus, S. L., Cizmar, A. M., & Gimpel, J. G. (2009). Media supply, audience demand, and the geography of news consumption in the United States. Political Communication, 26, 249-277.

Althouse, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17, 21-45.

Anderson, B. (2004). News Flash: Journalism, Infotainment, and the Bottom-Line Business of Broadcast News. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Atkin, C. K., & Gantz, W. (1978). Television news and political socialization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 183-198.

Austin, E. W. (1993). Exploring the effects of active parental mediation of television content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 147-158.

Austin, E. W., Bolls, P., & Engelbertson, J. (1999). How and why parents take on the tube? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 175-193.

Austin, E. W., Roberts, D. F., & Nass, C. I. (1990). Influences of family communication on children’s television-interpretation processes. Communication Research, 17, 545-564.

Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.

Bae, H-S., & Lee, B. (2004). Audience Involvement and its Antecedents: An Analysis of the Electronic Bulletin Board Messages about an Entertainment-Education Drama on Divorce in Korea. Asian Journal of Communication, 14, 6-21.

Baek, Y. M., & Wojcieszak, M. E. (2009). Don’t expect too much! Learning from late-night comedy and knowledge item difficulty. Communication Research, 36, 783-809.

Baum, M. A. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96, 91-109.

Baum, M. A. (2003a). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Political Communication, 20, 173-190.

Baum, M. A. (2003b). Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the New Media Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J.S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, Efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34, 341-367.

152

Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22, 259-276.

Bennett, W. L. (2007). Relief in hard times: A defense of Jon Stewart’s comedy in an age of cynicism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 278-283.

Berelson, B. (1949). What missing the newspaper means. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1948-1949 (pp. 111-129). New York: Harper.

Bilandzic, H., & Rössler, P. (2004). Life according to television. Implications of genre-specific cultivation effects: The Gratification/Cultivation model. Communications, 29, 295–326.

Biocca, F. A. (1988). Opposing conceptions of the audience: The active and passive hemispheres of mass communication theory. Communication Yearbook, 11, 51-80.

Bishop, C., Lariscy, R., English, K., Sweetser, K., & Tinkham, S. (2008, August 6). Need for cognition and race or gender based judgments of political candidates drawn from an online news excerpt. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p272554_index.html

Bizer, G. Y., Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D. and Wheeler, S. C. (2002, August 28). The impact of personality on political beliefs, attitudes, and behavior: Need for cognition and need to evaluate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts. Retrieved February 02, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p66169_index.html

Blumler, J. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9-36.

Brewer, P. R., & Cao, X. (2006). Candidate appearances on soft news shows and public knowledge about primary campaigns. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 18- 35.

Brewer, P. R., & Marquardt, E. (2007). Mock news and democracy: Analyzing The Daily Show. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15, 249-267.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional Labor and Burnout: Comparing Two Perspectives of “People Work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 60, 17–39.

Buijzen, M., Van der Molen, J. H. W., & Sondij, P. (2007). Parental mediation of children’s emotional responses to a violent news event. Communication Research, 34, 212-230.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.

153

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in their need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.

Cameron, J. E., & Lalonde, R. N. (2001). Social identification and gender-related ideology in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 59–77.

Cao, X. (2008). Political comedy shows and knowledge about primary campaigns: The moderating effects of age and education. Mass Communication & Society, 11, 43-61.

Cao, X., & Brewer, P. R. (2008). Political comedy shows and public participation in politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 90-99.

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807-840.

Carter, B., & Stelter, B. (2010, December 26). In “Daily Show” role on 9/11 Bill, echoes of Murrow. The New York Times. Retrieved December 27, 2010 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=ho mepage.

Chaffee, S., & Frank, S. (1996). How Americans get political news: Print versus broadcast news. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546(1), 48-58.

Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, G. (1994). Political knowledge and the campaign media of 1992. Communication Research, 21, 305-324.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752- 766.

Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perception of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58, 201-219.

Cohen, A. R. (1957). Need for cognition and order of communication as determinants of opinion change. In C. I. Hovland (Ed.), The order of presentation in persuasion (pp. 79–97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cohen, D. (1999). It’s the 10 p.m. news: Do you know where the viewers are? St. Louis Journalism Review, 29, 7-12.

154

Cooper, R., & Tang, T. (2009). Predicting audience exposure to television in today’s media environment: An empirical integration of active-audience and structural theories. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 400-418.

Daily Show, (March 12, 2009). Interview with Jim Cramer, pt. 2. Retrieved March 17, 2009 from http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221517&title=Jim-Cramer- Unedited-Interview-Pt.-2

Dancey, L., & Goren, P. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 686-699.

David, C. (2005). Who learns from the news? The moderating role of cognitive processing styles in learning from the news. Conference Papers – American Association for Public Opinion Research

Davitz, J. R. (1969). The language of emotions. New York: Academic Press. de Sousa, R. (2012). Emotion. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved June 27, 2012 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/emotion/.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. 1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1179-1206.

Diddi, A., & LaRose, R. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 193-210.

Dorr, A., Kovaric, P., & Doubleday, C. (1989). Parent-child co-viewing of television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 33, 33-51.

Druick, Z. (2009). Dialogic absurdity: TV news parody as a critique of genre. Television & New Media, 10, 294-308.

Druckman, J. N. (2005). Media matter: How newspaper and television news cover campaigns and influence voters. Political Communication, 22, 463-481.

Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R. J., Oehlberg, L., Thomton, J.D., & Nickell, E. (2008). Social TV: Designing for distributed, sociable television viewing. International Journal of human- computer interaction, 24, 136-154.

Eppler, M. J. & Mengis, J. (2004). The Concept of Information Overload: A Review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines. The Information Society, 20, 325–344.

155

Fallows, J. (1996). Breaking the news: How the media undermine American democracy. New York: Pantheon.

Feldman, L. (2007). The news about comedy: Young audiences, The Daily Show, and evolving notions of journalism. Journalism, 8, 406-427.

Feldman, L., & Young, D. G. (2008). Late-night comedy as a gateway to traditional news: an analysis of time trends in news attention among late-night comedy viewers during the 2004 presidential primaries. Political Communication, 25, 401-422.

Fox, J. R., Koloen, G, & Sahin, V. (2007). No joke: A comparison of substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and broadcast network television coverage of the 2004 presidential election campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 213-227.

Newport, F. (2009). Democrats do best among Generation Y and Baby Boomers. Republicans do better among Generation X. Gallup Politics, May 8, 2009. Retrieved June 21, 2012 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/118285/democrats-best-among-generation-baby-boomers.aspx.

Galston, W. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217-234.

Garand, J., Guynan, E., & Fournet, M. (2004, January 13). The gender gap and political knowledge: Men and women in national and state politics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, Retrieved February 6, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p67995_index.html

Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898-915.

Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. Group and Organizational Management, 23, 48-70.

Garramone, G. M. (1983). TV news and adolescent political socialization. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 7 (pp. 651-669). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Greenberg, B. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for British children. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz, (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on \gratifications research (pp. 71-92), Beverly Hills: Sage.

Greenwald, A. G., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 581-592.

Groeling, T. (2008). Who’s the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox news. Political Studies Quarterly, 38, 631-657.

156

Gutman, J. (1978). Television viewer types: A Q analysis. Journal of Broadcasting, 22, 505-515.

Hanson, G., & Haridakis, P. (2008). YouTube users watching and sharing the news: A uses and gratifications approach. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(3). Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0011.305?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Haridakis, P. M. (2002). Viewer characteristics, exposure to television violence, and aggression. Media Psychology, 4, 325-353.

Haridakis, P. M. (2006). Men, women, and televised violence: Predicting viewer aggression in male and female television viewers. Communication Quarterly, 54, 227-255.

Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 317-335.

Haridakis, P. M., & Rubin, A. M. (2003). Motivation for watching television violence and viewer aggression. Mass Communication & Society, 6, 29-56.

Haridakis, P. M., & Rubin, A. M. (2005). Third-person effect in the aftermath of terrorism. Mass Communication & Society, 8, 39-59.

Harris, M. (2008, September). Saving TV. Portfolio.com. Retrieved July 8, 2009 from http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/culture-inc/arts/2008/08/13/Tracing-the-Decline- of-Network-TV

Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., Bruce, L., & Tapper, J. (1997). Strategy and style in attention to television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 245-264.

Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., Bush Hitchon, J., Gilligan, E., Kahlor, L., Gorham, B. W., et al. (2002). What holds attention to television? Strategic inertia of looks at content boundaries. Communication Research, 29, 30-30.

Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about daytime serial listeners? In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1942-1943 (pp. 3-33). New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

Holbert, R.L., Lambe, J.L., Dudo, A. D., & Carlton, K. A. (2007). Primacy effects of The Daily Show and national TV news viewing: Young viewers, political gratifications, and internal political self-efficacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 20-38.

Hollander, B. A. (2005). Late-night learning: Do entertainment programs increase political campaign knowledge for young viewers? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 402-415.

157

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.

IMDb, (2008). Not Necessarily the News. The Internet Movie Database, Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085065/

Jennings, M. K., (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 228-252.

Kakutani, M. (2008, August 17). Is Jon Stewart the most trusted man in America? The New York Times, Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html?_r=1

Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication research and the study of popular culture. Studies in Public Communication, 21, 522-552.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kim, J., & Rubin, A. M. (1997). The variable influence of audience activity on media effects. Communication Research, 24, 107-135.

Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just laugh! You don’t need to remember: The effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication, 58, 338-360.

Kimura, D. (2000). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book/The MIT Press.

King, David, and Richard Matland. 2003. Sex and the Grand Old Party: An experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a Republican candidate. American Politics Research, 31, 595-612.

Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press.

Klapper, J. T. (1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 515-527.

Larcinese, V. (2005, February). Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election. LSE STICERD Research Paper No. PEPP01. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1158323

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37-51). New York: Harper.

158

Lemish, D. (1985). Soap opera viewing in college: A naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 275-293.

Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones: Text messaging explodes as teens embrace it as the centerpiece of their communication strategies with friends. Pew Internet. Retrieved September 3, 2012 from: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones/Summary-of-findings.aspx

Levy, M. (1977a). The uses-and-gratifications of television news. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Levy, M. (1977b). Experiencing television news. Journal of Communication, 27(4), 112-117.

Levy, M. (1983). Conceptualizing and measuring aspects of audience "activity." Journalism Quarterly, 60, 109-115.

Levy, M., & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 11, 51-78.

Levy, M., & Windahl, S. (1985). The concept of audience activity. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspectives (pp. 109-122), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Liu, Y-I., & Eveland, W. P. (2005). Education, need for cognition, and campaign interest as moderators of news effects on political knowledge: An analysis of the knowledge gap. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 910-929.

Livingston, G., & Lopez, M. H. (2010). How young Latinos communicate with friends in the digital age. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved September 3, 2012 from: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2010/07/28/iii-youth-communication-patterns-hispanics-and- non-hispanics/

Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6, 197-209.

MBC, (2008). That Was the Week that Was. The Museum of Broadcast Communication. Retrieved on 09.23.2008 from http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/T/htmlT/thatwasthe/thatwasthe.htm.

MacDonald, F. J. (1990). One nation under television: The rise and decline of network TV. New York: Pantheon.

Madsen, D. (1987). Political self-efficacy tested. American Political Science Review, 81, 571- 581.

159

Massey, K. B. (1995). Analyzing the uses and gratifications concept of audience activity with a qualitative approach: Media encounters during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake disaster. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39, 328-349.

Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J., (2002). Audience orientations toward new media. Communication Research Reports, 19, 338-351.

McKain, A. (2005). Not necessarily not the news: gatekeeping, remediation and The Daily Show. The Journal of American Culture, 28, 415-430.

McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. R. (1972). The television audience; A revised perspective. In D McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communication (pp. 135-165), Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1993). Communication models for the study of mass communication (2nd ed.), New York: Longman.

Mondak, J. J. (1999). Reconsidering the measurement of political knowledge. Political Analysis, 8(1), 57-82.

Moore, W. (2001). Television: Opiate of the masses. The Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 2(2), 59-66. Available at http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL59.htm

Mora, J-D., Ho, J., & Krider, R. (2011). Television co-viewing in Mexico: An assessment on people meter data. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55, 448-469.

Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Communication and citizenship: Mapping the political effects of infotainment. Mass Communication & Society, 8(2), 111-131.

Mutz, D. C. (2001). The future of political communication research: Reflections on the occasion of Steve Chaffee’s retirement. Political Communication, 18, 231–236.

Newhagen, J. E. (1994). Self-efficacy and call-in political television show use. Communication Research, 21, 366-379.

News Satire, (2009). Wikipedia. Retrieved July 09. 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_satire.

Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1998 national election study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413.

Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn II, J. D. (1979). Uses and Gratifications and exposure to public television: A discrepancy method. Communication Research, 6, 155-179.

160

Passyn, K., & Sujan, M. (2012). Skill-based versus effort-based task difficulty: A task-analysis approach to the role of specific emotions in motivating difficult actions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 461-468.

Patterson, T. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good. (Faculty Research Working Paper Series, No. RWP01-001. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Perse, E. M. (1990a). Audience selectivity and involvement in the newer media environment. Communication Research, 17, 675-697.

Perse, E. M. (1990b). Involvement with local television news: Cognitive and emotional dimensions. Human Communication Research, 16, 556-581.

Perse, E. M. (1998). Implications of cognitive and affective involvement in channel changing. Journal of Communication, 48, 49-68.

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 37-53.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pew Research Center (2000). The tough job of communicating with voters. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2004, January 11). Cable and Internet loom large in fragmented political universe: Perceptions of partisan bias seen as growing. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 25, 2008 from http://www.people- press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=200.

Pew Research Center for People & the Press (2008, February 6). Men and women differ in following the news. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/722/men- women-follow-news

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2009, September 13). Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low: Public Evaluations of the News Media: 1985-2009. Washington, DC. Retrieved April 10, 2010 from http://people-press.org/report/543/.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2010, September 12). Americans Spending More Time Following the News. Ideological News Sources: Who Watches and Why. Retrieved June 15, 2012 from http://www.people-press.org/2010/09/12/americans-spending- more-time-following-the-news/.

Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (2012). The state of the news media 2012. Network: By the numbers. Retrieved May 23, 2012 from

161

http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/network-news-the-pace-of-change-accelerates/network-by- the-numbers/

Pfau, M., Cho, J & Chong, K. (2001). Communication Forms in U.S. Presidential Campaigns: Influences on Candidate Perceptions and the Democratic Process. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6, 88-196.

Pingree, S., Hawkins, R.P., Bush Hitchon, J. C., Gilligan, E., Radler, B., Kahlor, L., et al. (2001). If college students are appointed television viewers… Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 446-463.

Prior, M. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149-171.

Reincheld, A. (2006). “Saturday Night Live” and Weekend Update: The formative years of comedy news dissemination. Journalism History, 31(4), 190-197.

Rosen, R. M. (2012). Efficacy and Meaning in Ancient and Modern Political Satire: Aristophanes, Lenny Bruce, and Jon Stewart. Social Research, 79(1), 1-32.

Rubin, A. M. (1979). Television use by children and adolescents. Human Communication Research, 5, 109-120.

Rubin, A. M. (1981a). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8, 141-165.

Rubin, A. M. (1981b). A multivariate analysis of “60 Minutes” viewing motivations. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 529-534.

Rubin, A. M. (1983) Television Uses and Gratifications: The interaction of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.

Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 67-77.

Rubin, A. M. (1985). Uses of daytime television soap operas by college students. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 241-258.

Rubin, A. M. (1993). Audience activity and media use. Communication Monographs, 60, 98- 105.

Rubin, A. M. (1994). Television Viewing Motives Scale. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 371-376). New York: Guilford Press.

162

Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 165-184). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Rubin, A. M., & Conway, J. C. (1991). Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation. Communication Research, 18, 443-463.

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987a). Audience activity and soap opera involvement: A uses and effects investigation. Human Communication Research, 14, 246-268.

Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987b). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14, 58-84.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985) Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12, 155-180.

Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 3-37.

Schramm, W. (1949). The nature of news. Journalism Quarterly, 26, 259-269.

Schramm, W. (1971). The nature of communication between humans. In W. Schramm & D. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of communication (pp. 3-54). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Schrøder, K. C. (1999). The best of both worlds? Media audience research between rival paradigms. In P. Alasuutari (Ed.), Rethinking media audience: The new agenda (pp. 38-68). London: Thousand Oaks.

Seitz, J. (2008). It’s an online world for young people and political news. Nieman Reports, 62(2), 10-11.

Shen, F., & Eveland, W. P. (2010). Testing the Intramedia Interaction Hypothesis: The contingent effects of news. Journal of Communication, 60, 364-387.

Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28, 19–41.

Stelter, B. (2008, February 21). News or Nancy Grace? Headline News viewers have voted with their remotes. TV Decoder. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/news-or-nancy-grace-headline-news- viewers-have-voted-with-their-remotes/

Stempel, G. H., & Hargrove, T. (2008). Comparison of demographics for media in 1995, 2006. Newspaper Research Journal, 29, 83-90.

163

Stolberg, S. G. (2010, October 27). Obama, Stewart, and change. The New York Times. Retrieved December 20, 2010 from: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/obama-jon- stewart-and-change/.

Tidwell, P. S., Sadowski, C. J., & Pate, L. M. (2000). Relationship between need for cognition, knowledge, and verbal ability. The Journal of Psychology, 134, 634-644.

Trier, J. (2008). The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Part 1. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 424-427.

Uribe, R., & Gunter, B. (2007). Are ‘sensational’ news stories more likely to trigger viewers’ emotions than non-sensational news stories? A content analysis of British TV news. European Journal of Communication, 22, 207-228.

Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to asses three styles of television mediation: “instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and “social co-viewing.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 52-66.

Van den Bulck, J. (2006). Television news avoidance: Exploratory results from a one-year follow-up study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 231-252

Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 487-492.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vincent, R. C., & Basil, M. D. (1997). College students’ news gratifications, media use, and current events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 380-392.

Walker, J. R., & Bellamy, R.V., Jr. (1991). The gratifications of grazing: An exploratory study of remote control use. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 422-431.

Walker, J. R., Bellamy, R.V., Jr., & Traudt, P. J. (1993). Gratifications derived from remote control devices. A survey of adult RCD use. In J. R. Walker & R. V. Bellamy, Jr. (Eds.), The remote control in the new age of television (pp. 103-112). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Warrington, P., & Shim, S. (2000). An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 761-782.

Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787-798.

Webster, J. G. (2009). The role of structure in media choice. In T. Hartmann (Ed.), Media choice: A theoretical and empirical overview (pp. 221–233). New York, London: Routledge.

164

Weintraub, E. A., & Pinkleton, B. E. (2001). The role of parental mediation in the political socialization process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 221-240.

Weprin, A. (2009, March 20). Obama brings viewers to the “Tonight Show.” Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/190352- Obama_Brings_Viewers_To_The_Tonight_Show_.php?q=obama+brings+viewers

Windahl, S. (1981). Uses and Gratifications at the crossroads. In G. C. Wilhoit & H. de Bock (Eds.), Mass Communication Review Yearbook, Vol. 2, pp. 174-185). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Wonneberger, A., Schoenbach, K., & van Meurs, L. (2011). Interest in News and Politics -- or Situational Determinants? Why People Watch the News. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 55(3), 325–343.

Wright, C. R. (1960). Functional analysis and mass communication. Public opinion Quarterly, 24, 605-620.

Yang, M. M., & Nathanson, A. (2005). Reconceptualizing co-viewing as a kind of mediation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, New York, NY. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p13116_index.html

Young, D. G. (2004b). Late-night comedy in Election 2000: Its influence on candidate trait ratings and the moderating effects of political knowledge and partisanship. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 1-22.

Young, D. G. (2006). Late-night comedy and the salience of the candidate’s caricatured traits in the 2000 election. Mass Communication & Society, 9, 339-366.

Young, D. G., & Tisinger, R. (2006). Dispelling late-night myths: News consumption among late-night comedy viewers and the predictors to various late-night shows. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 113–134.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation: A solution is suggested for an old social psychological problem. Science, 149, 269-274.

Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 327-340.

Zogby Interactive. (2008, February 27). Zogby Poll: 67% view traditional journalism as “Out of Touch.” Utica, NY. Retrieved March 17, 2008 from http://interactive.zogby.com/index.cfm