HOSTILE MEDIA PERCEPTION AND PARTISAN PROCESSING OF MEDIA MESSAGES: SELF-CATEGORIZATION AND INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEBATES OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND POVERTY by DYLAN MICHAEL McLEMORE KIM BISSELL, COMMITTEE CHAIR ANDREW C. BILLINGS WILSON LOWREY SHUHUA ZHOU ANNELIESE C. BOLLAND A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Communication and Information Sciences in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2015 Copyright Dylan Michael McLemore 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT Hostile media perception (HMP) is a well-documented perceptual media effect. Yet, an understanding of its causal mechanisms has been difficult to ascertain. This study examined two promising, inter-disciplinary theoretical explanations – self-categorization and involvement. An experiment tested the effect of various facets of self-categorization and involvement on personal and perceived media positions regarding two issues that are salient to both political and religious identities – same-sex marriage and poverty. Political and religious self-categorization predicted personal positions on the issues, as well as perceptions of relevant media messages. Both HMP and message assimilation were related to self-categorization. Political self-categorization emerged as the strongest predictor of personal beliefs and media perceptions. Value involvement increased position extremity and message assimilation. Findings suggest particular usefulness of self-categorization in predicting HMP, while raising further questions about how readily HMP occurs, particularly among weaker partisans, and which audience or message factors predict message assimilation or contrast. Theoretical and methodological implications for future research are discussed. ii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my family, who made me the person I am today; to my wife, who inspires me; to her family, who has become mine, for joining in the final push; and to the Lord and Savior they each draw me toward. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS α Cronbach’s alpha of internal consistency for scale reliability β Beta: The standardized coefficients of a regression η2 Partial eta squared: The amount of variance in an outcome variable explained by predictor variables in a General Linear Model test (e.g., ANOVA) χ2 Chi-square: A statistical test comparing the distributions of categorical variables ANES American National Election Studies ANOVA Analysis of variance: A statistical test measuring the effect of categorical predictors on continuous outcomes ANCOVA Analysis of covariance: A statistical test measuring the effect of categorical predictors and continuous covariates on continuous outcomes B Unstandardized coefficients of a regression df Degrees of freedom: number of values free to vary independently EMM Estimated marginal mean: A mean adjusted for the effect of covariates in a model, also known as an adjusted mean F Fisher’s test of the equality of two variances HMP Hostile media perception IDPG Identification with a Psychological Group scale IRB Institutional review board IPMI Influence of perceived media influence M Mean: The sum of a series of observed values divided by the number of observed values in the set NSL South Korean National Security Law iv p Probability of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis based on observed values r Pearson product-moment correlation between two variables r2 Amount of variance in an outcome variable explained by predictor variables in a regression test RELTRAD Steensland et al.’s (2000) religious tradition classification scheme SD Standard deviation: The degree to which individual values in a set differ from the observed mean SE Standard error: The degree to which estimated individual values in a set differ from the estimated marginal mean, or adjusted mean t Student’s test statistic comparing the distribution of continuous variables v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS If completing a dissertation is the final hurdle of one’s higher education, I only cleared it because of a great many people lifting me above the bar. By sheer numbers, there would be no dissertation without the dozens of instructors who assisted in distributing recruitment materials and hundreds of students who devoted time to participating in the experiment. A better committee could not have been assembled. To Dr. Andy Billings for creating clarity through organization, and for finding the most important contributions hiding in plain sight; to Dr. Shuhua Zhou for his expertise in hostile media perception; to Dr. Wilson Lowrey for his sociological approach that brought out the macro-level ramifications of a micro-level psychological phenomenon; to Dr. Anneliese Bolland, who came for the statistics, but stayed for the meticulous proofreading; and to my chair, Dr. Kim Bissell, for broadening my scope as a researcher, providing opportunities for growth, and above all, pushing me to finish this dissertation… my sincerest thanks. In addition to the committee’s contributions, the development and refinement of the topic and method were aided greatly by Dr. Nick Bowman, Dr. Betsy Grabe, and Dr. Xiaoli Nan at the 2014 National Communication Association Doctoral Honors Seminar at the University of Maryland. Elements of the study design and stimulus construction were first conceived as part of an independent study with Dr. Jennifer Greer. The section on religion and politics was formed in large part from readings suggested by Chase Porter. This dissertation was also undoubtedly shaped by my cohort, particularly Lindsey Conlin, Coral Marshall, Reema Mohini, Richard Rush, and Adam Sharples. We took courses and comps; vi collaborated, conferenced, commiserated, and celebrated together. I get the feeling we were a rarity, and I’m thankful for your friendship. I’m also thankful for my friends at Calvary Tuscaloosa. They were my escape from academia, and the final semester would not have been possible without their generosity, particularly that of Tyler Uzzell and Dana Williams. I owe my family a great deal of gratitude and much of my newfound free time upon completing this dissertation. My mother, Ginger, prayed for me continuously, and was a steady source of encouragement. My wife, Heather, agreed to marry me in the midst of my dissertation year, and through it all our love is still significant at the .05 level. We are allowed to think nerdy lines like that are romantic, because we’re both doctors now. vii CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION ........................................................................................... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ...................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. xii CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ........................................................1 CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................6 1. Origins of Hostile Media Perception .................................................6 2. Early Cognitive Explanations of HMP ..............................................8 3. Message and Source Factors ............................................................12 4. Understanding Partisan Interaction With Media: Theoretical Infusions .......................................................................16 5. The Present Study: A Merging of Approaches ................................29 6. HMP and the Influence of Perceived Media Influence ....................34 CHAPTER THREE – METHODS ............................................................44 1. Approach ..........................................................................................44 2. Participants .......................................................................................45 3. Stimulus Materials ...........................................................................45 4. Measurements ..................................................................................50 viii 5. Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................62 CHAPTER FOUR – RESULTS ................................................................65 1. Sample and Condition Distributions ................................................65 2. Stimulus Quality and Manipulation Checks ....................................66 3. Issue Positions and Partisanship ......................................................68 4. Hostile Media Perception .................................................................70 5. Self-Categorization ..........................................................................74 6. Involvement ...................................................................................102 7. Interaction Between Self-Categorization and Involvement ...........114 8. Hostile Media Effects ....................................................................117 CHAPTER FIVE – DISCUSSION ..........................................................124 1. Theoretical and Practical Contributions.........................................125 2. Methodological Contributions .......................................................133 3. Limitations and