Esta es un versión antigua publicada el 2021-12-12. Consulte la versión más reciente.

La conexión entre las percepciones de sesgos mediáticos y su influencia en la polarización afectiva: un examen en Brasil, México y Estados Unidos

Autores/as

Chau Tong University of Wisconsin-Madison https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6609-9889
Haley Winckler University of Wisconsin-Madison https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7408-8266
Hernando Rojas University of Wisconsin-Madison https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0012-4041

DOI:

Palabras clave:

Brasil, México, Estados Unidos, opinión pública, efectos mediáticos, percepciones políticas, actitudes políticas, polarización afectiva, percepción hostil de los medios, influencia mediática percibida, efecto de la tercera persona

Resumen

Este estudio examina dos tipos de percepciones relacionadas con los medios de comunicación (percepción de los medios hostiles y percepción de tercera persona) y su relación con la polarización afectiva, o la creciente hostilidad partidista entre miembros de partidos opuestos en Brasil, México y Estados Unidos. Operacionalizando la polarización afectiva como la discrepancia estimada entre los miembros del propio partido político y los de otros en ciertos rasgos de personalidad, como la inteligencia, el preocuparse por el bienestar de la humanidad, el estar informado, o el ser tolerante, encontramos correlaciones positivas fuertes y estadísticamente significativas entre dichas percepciones y la polarización afectiva. En otras palabras, pensar que los medios están sesgados en contra del propio bando y pensar que los partidarios del otro lado son más susceptibles a la influencia sesgada de los medios, se asocia directamente con lo que uno siente acerca de los que pertenecen a otros partidos. Las implicaciones de estos hallazgos se discuten en relación con la prominencia de las percepciones de sesgos mediáticos y la polarización afectiva en países con diferentes niveles de profesionalismo mediático y polarización partidista.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Chau Tong, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Chau Tong (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Postdoctoral Associate in the Department of Communication at Cornell University. Her research interests are broadly in political communication, communication technologies and public opinion.

Haley Winckler, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Haley Winckler (BA, University of Wisconsin-Madison) graduated from the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, with a degree in strategic communication. She works in public affairs, contributing to digital and advertising campaigns for a variety of clients across multiple industries.

Hernando Rojas, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Hernando Rojas (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison) is the Centennial professor and Helen Firstbrook Franklin Chair at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin – Madison. His research focuses on communication and democratic engagement.

Citas

Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, K. (2005). Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America. The Forum, 3(2), 1−22. https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1076

Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, K. (2008). Is Polarization a Myth? The Journal of Politics, 70, 542−555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080493

Abrams, S. J., & Fiorina, M. P. (2012). “The Big Sort” That Wasn't: A Skeptical Reexamination. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45, 203−210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000017

Ahler, D. J. (2014). Self-fulfilling Misperceptions of Public Polarization. The Journal of Politics, 76, 607−620. doi:10.1017/S0022381614000085

Albuquerque, A. (2019). Protecting democracy or conspiring against it? Media and politics in Latin America: A glimpse from Brazil. Journalism, 20(7), 906−923. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917738376

Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1130−1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160

Barberá, P. (2020). Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. In N. Persily & J. Tucker (Eds.), Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field and Prospects for Reform. Cambridge University Press.

Barnidge, M., & Rojas, H. (2014). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and political talk: Expanding the corrective action hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 135−156. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt032

Barthel, M., & Mitchell, A. (2017). American’s Attitudes about the News Media Deeply Divided along Partisan Lines. Pew Research Center. http://www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/americans-attitudes-about-the-news-media-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/pj_2017-05-10_media-attitudes_a-07/

Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27−52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103

Boas, T. (2013). Mass media and politics in Latin America. Constructing democratic governance in Latin America, 48-77. http://people.bu.edu/tboas/media_LA.pdf

Chia, S. C., Yong, S. Y. J, Wong, Z. W. D, & Koh, W. L. (2007). Personal Bias or Government Bias? Testing the Hostile Media Effect in a Regulated Press System. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 313−330. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edm011

Choi, J., Yang, M., & Chang, J. (2009). Elaboration of the Hostile Media Phenomenon. Communication Research, 36, 54−75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208326462

Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived Impact of Defamation: An Experiment on Third-Person Effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161−173. https://doi.org/10.1086/269092

Cuddington, D., & Wike, R. (2015). Declining Ratings for Mexico’s Pena Nieto. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/08/27/declining-ratings-for-mexicos-pena-nieto/

Dalton, R. J. (2008). The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems: Party System Polarization, Its Measurement, and Its Consequences. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 899−920. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414008315860.

Dalton, R. J. (2017). Party System Polarization Index for CSES Modules 1-4. http://www.cses.org/datacenter/usercommunity3/usercommunity3.htm

Davison, W. (1983). The Third-Person Effect in Communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1−15. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763

Druckman, J., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57−79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500

Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77−93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250107

Evans, J. H. (2003). Have Americans Attitudes Become More Polarized? An Update. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 71−90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8401005

Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political Polarization in the American Public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563−588. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836

Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. (2005). Culture Wars? The Myth of Polarized America. Pearson Longman.

Flaxman, S., Goel. S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 298−320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006

Garrett, R., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of Pro and Counter-attitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization. Human Communication Research, 40, 309−332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028

Gil de Zuniga, H., & Valenzuela, S. (2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38(3), 397−421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384984

Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The Causes of Hostile Media Judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165−180. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1008

Gómez García, R., & Treré, E. (2014). The # YoSoy132 movement and the struggle for media democratization in Mexico. Convergence, 20(4), 496−510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856514541744

Guerrero, M., & Márquez-Ramírez, M. (2014). Media systems and communication policies in Latin America. Springer.

Gunther, A. (1992). Biased Press or Biased Public? Attitudes Toward Media Coverage of Social Groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147−167. https://doi.org/10.1086/269308

Gunther, A. (1998). The Persuasive Press Inference: Effects of Mass Media on Perceived Public Opinion. Communication Research, 25, 486−504. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/009365098025005002

Gunther, A., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D., Liebhart, J., & Price, J. (2006). Presumed Influence on Peer Norms: How Mass Media Indirectly Affect Adolescent Smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52−68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x

Gunther, A., Miller, N., & Liebhart, J. L. (2009). Assimilation and Contrast in a Test of the Hostile Media Effect. Communication Research, 36, 747−764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209346804

Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.

Hallin, D., & Papathanassopoulos, S. (2002). Political Clientelism and the Media: Southern Europe and Latin America in Comparative Perspective. Media, Culture & Society, 24, 175−195. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344370202400202

Horowitz, J. M. (2013). Dissatisfaction in Brazil, Despite Positive Views of the Economy. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/21/dissatisfaction-in-brazil-despite-positive-views-of-the-economy/

Huerta-Wong, J. E., & Gómez García, R. (2013). Concentration and diversity of the media and telecommunications in Mexico. Communication and Society, (19), 113−152. https://doi.org/10.32870/cys.v0i19.206

Ituassu, A., Lifschitz, S., Capone, L., Vaz, M. B., & Mannheimer, V. (2018). Sharing Media and Electoral Preference on Twitter: Analysis of Public Opinion during the 2014 Elections in Brazil. Palabra Clave, 21(3), 860−884. https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2018.21.3.9

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405−431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038

Jones, D. A. (2004). Why Americans Don’t Trust the Media: A Preliminary Analysis. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(2), 60−75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X04263461

Levendusky, M., & Malhotra, N. (2016). Does Media Coverage of Partisan Polarization Affect Political Attitudes? Political Communication, 33, 283−301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455

Márquez-Ramírez, M. (2014). Post-Authoritarian Politics in a Neoliberal Era: Revising media and journalism transition in Mexico. In M. A. Guerrero & M. Márquez Ramírez (Eds.), Media Systems and Communication Policies in Latin America (pp. 272−292). Palgrave Macmillan.

Márquez-Ramírez, M., & Guerrero, M. A. (2014). Introduction: Media Systems in the Age of (Anti) Neoliberal Politics. In M. Guerrero & M. Márquez-Ramírez (Eds.), Media Systems and Communication Policies in Latin America (pp. 1−23). Palgrave Macmillan.

Matheson, K. & Dursun, S. (2001). Social Identity Precursors to the Hostile Media Phenomenon: Partisan Perceptions of Coverage of the Bosnian Conflict. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 4, 116−125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004002003

Matthes, J. (2011). The Affective Underpinnings of Hostile Media Perceptions. Communication Research, 40, 360−387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420255

Matos, C. (2011). Media and democracy in Brazil. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 8(1), 178−196. https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.180

Matos, C. (2012). Media and politics in Latin America: globalization, democracy and identity (Vol. 52). IB Tauris.

McCann, J. A., & Lawson, C. H. (2003). An Electorate Adrift? Public Opinion and the Quality of Democracy in Mexico. Latin American Research Review, 38(3), 60−81.

McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2001). Behind the Third-Person Effect: Differentiating Perceptual Processes for Self and Other. Journal of Communication, 51(4), 678−695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02902.x

Mcleod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for Censorship of Violent and Misogynic Rap Lyrics. Communication Research, 24, 153−174. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024002003

Paulino, F. O., & Guazina, L. S. (2020). The Brazilian Media System in a Turbulent Environment. In D. K. Thussu & K. Nordenstreng (Eds.), BRICS Media: Reshaping the Global Communication Order. Routledge.

Persily, N., & Tucker, J. A. (Eds.). (2020). Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field and Prospects for Reform. Cambridge University Press.

Perloff, R. M. (1999). The Third-person Effect: A Critical Review and Synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353−378. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0104_4

Pew Research Center (2009). Public Evaluations of the News Media: 1885-2009. Press Accuracy Ratings Hit Two-decade Low. http://www.people-press.org/2009/09/13/press-accuracy-rating-hits-two-decade-low/

Pew Research Center (2014). Political Polarization in the American Public. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Huang, L-N. (1998). Third-Person effects on publication of a holocaust-Denial advertisement. Journal of Communication, 48(2), 3−26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02745.x

Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press.

World Press Freedom Index (2016). Retrieved 31 August 2021, from https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2016

Rojas, H. (2010). “Corrective” Actions in the Public Sphere: How Perceptions of Media Effects Shape Political Behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 343−363. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq018

Rojas, H., Barnidge, M., & Abril, E. P. (2016). Egocentric publics and corrective action. Communication and the Public, 1, 27−38. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047315619421

Schmitt, K., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why Partisans See Mass Media as Biased. Communication Research, 31, 623−641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204269390

Settle, J. E. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge University Press.

Tewksbury, D., Moy, P., & Weis, D. S. (2004). Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the Behavioral Component of the Third-Person Effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 138−155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02618.x

Tong, C., Gill, H., Li, J., Valenzuela, S., & Rojas, H. (2020). “Fake News Is Anything They Say!”—Conceptualization and Weaponization of Fake News among the American Public. Mass Communication and Society, 23(5), 755-778. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1789661

Tsfati, Y. (2007). Hostile Media Perceptions, Presumed Media Influence, and Minority Alienation: The Case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 632−651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00361.x

Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2005). The Influence of Presumed Media Influence on Democratic Legitimacy: The Case of Gaza Settlers. Communication Research, 32, 794−821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205281057

Vallone, R., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577−585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577

Vice, M., & Chwe, H. (2017). Mexican Views of the U.S. Turn Sharply Negative: Widespread Dissatisfaction with Economy and Political Leaders. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/09/14/mexican-views-of-the-u-s-turn-sharply-negative/pg_2017-09-14_mexico_0-03/

Yang, J., Rojas, H., Wojcieszak, M., Aalberg, T., Coen, S., Curran, J., Hayashi, K., Iyengar, S., Jones, P., Mazzoleni, G., Papathanassopoulos, S., Rhee, J., Rowe, D., Soroka, S., & Tiffen, R. (2016). Why Are “Others” So Polarized? Perceived Political Polarization and Media Use in 10 Countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 349−367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12166

Weitz-Shapiro, R., & Winters, M.S. (2016). Can Citizens Discern? Information Credibility, Political Sophistication, and the Punishment of Corruption in Brazil. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 60−74. https://doi.org/10.1086/687287

Winters, M.S. & Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2014). Partisan Protesters and Nonpartisan Protests in Brazil. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 6(1), 137−50.

Webster, S., & Abramowitz, A. (2017). The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621−47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17703132

Descargas

PDF (English)

Publicado

2021-09-29 — Actualizado el 2021-12-12

Versiones

Cómo citar

Tong, C., Winckler, H. ., & Rojas, H. (2021). La conexión entre las percepciones de sesgos mediáticos y su influencia en la polarización afectiva: un examen en Brasil, México y Estados Unidos. Revista De Comunicación Política, 3(1), e210301. https://doi.org/10.29105/rcp3-1 (Original work published 29 de septiembre de 2021)

Descargar cita

Número

Vol. 3 Núm. 1 (2021): Enero - Diciembre 2021

Sección

Artículos

Licencia

Derechos de autor 2021 Revista de Comunicación Política

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.

Los derechos del trabajo pertenecen al autor o autores. Sin embargo, al enviarlo para su publicación en la Revista de Comunicación Política de la Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, el autor o autores otorgan el derecho a dicha institución para su publicación en medio electrónico.

La licencia que se utiliza es la de atribución de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que se mencione la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación que es en la Revista de Comunicación Política.

Asimismo, el o los autores tendrán en cuenta que no estará permitido enviar la publicación a ninguna otra revista, sin importar el formato. Los autores estarán en posibilidad de realizar otros acuerdos contractuales independientes y adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión del artículo (p. ej., repositorio institucional o publicación en un libro) siempre que indiquen claramente que el trabajo se publicó por primera vez en la Revista de Comunicación Política de la Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.