National Annenberg Election Survey Research Articles

Does the Salience of Partisan Competition Increase Affective Polarization in the United States?

We examine if increased salience of partisan competition causes affective polarization in the United States during presidential elections. To do so, we leverage the random and quasi-random timing of survey interviews conducted during election campaigns. We conduct three separate studies. In Study 1, we utilize the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES), in which random survey interview timing allows for a credible causal estimate of salience on affective polarization. In Study 2, we employ American National Election Studies (ANES) data from 1980 to 2016, again leveraging survey timing to assess the effect of salience on affective polarization. In Study 3, we examine changes in affective polarization as a result of increasingly salient partisan competition using NAES and ANES panel data from 1980 to 2008. Across the three studies we identify a meaningful increase in affective polarization toward candidates, but not toward parties, as a result of heightened partisan competition.

The Consequences of Broader Media Choice: Evidence from the Expansion of Fox News

In recent decades, the diversity of Americans' news choices has expanded substantially. This paper examines whether access to an ideologically distinctive news source --- the Fox News cable channel --- influences vote intentions. It focuses on whether any such effect is concentrated among those likely to agree with Fox's viewpoint. To test these possibilities with individual-level data, we identify local Fox News availability for 22,595 respondents to the 2000 National Annenberg Election Survey. For the population overall, we find a pro-Republican average treatment effect that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Yet, when separating respondents by party, we find a sizable effect of Fox access only on the vote intentions of Republicans and pure independents, a result that is bolstered by placebo tests. Contrary to fears about pervasive media influence, access to an ideologically distinctive media source reinforces the loyalties of co-partisans and possibly persuades independents without influencing out-partisans.

The extremists across the aisle: selective exposure and evaluations of presidential candidate extremity

ABSTRACTThe consensus of most scholars is that the United States is significantly polarized across lines of partisanship, ideology, beliefs, and values. This polarization also extends to media use through selective exposure to partisan television and online content. This suggests a process in which partisans view opponents as especially extreme, seek reinforcement of those views in media, and strengthen those views going forward.Using National Annenberg Election Survey panel data, this study examines relationships between political identity, cable television use, and perceptions of 2008 presidential candidates’ ideological extremity. Candidates from “across the aisle” are seen as more extreme, and this perception leads to a spiral of selective exposure, which reinforces and strengthens extant views. This process is driven by television sources that predate the Internet-based “Daily Me” model, suggesting that concerns about online echo chambers might be better focused on political segregation in general.

Knowledge Versus Beliefs: How Knowledge and Beliefs Mediate The Influence of Likeminded Media use on Political Polarization and Participation

Using cross-sectional data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey, this study tests 2 models that explicate the relationship between politically likeminded media use and political polarization and participation. The knowledge model suggests that the effects of exposure to likeminded media on individuals’ attitudinal polarization and political participation are mediated by knowledge of candidate issue stances. The belief model proposes that likeminded media use indirectly influences political polarization and participation via political beliefs. The results provide evidence that individuals’ beliefs mediate the influence of likeminded media consumption on attitudinal polarization and participation, but there was no support for the knowledge model. These findings indicate that individuals who consume politically likeminded news tend to develop polarized attitudes and are motivated to participate in political activities by forming biased beliefs associated with candidates rather than by gaining factual issue knowledge.

Local Political Context and Polarization in the Electorate: Evidence from the 2004 Presidential Election

Political scientists have long examined the degree to which the American electorate exhibits partisan and ideological polarization and sought to explain the causal mechanism driving this phenomenon. Some scholars have argued that there is an increasing degree of geographic polarization of the electorate—that is, a large percentage of geographic units are becoming less politically heterogeneous. In this study, I argue that the two trends are related. Using individual-level data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, I examine the relationship between local partisan context and political attitudes using multilevel models. I find that, as the local political context becomes less competitive in national elections; those in the local political majority become more ideologically extreme, strengthen their partisan attachments, and hold more polarized attitudes toward the two major-party presidential candidates. These findings suggest that the growing geo- graphic partisan segregation of the electorate is an important source of ideological and partisan polarization.

The Educative Effects of Extreme Television Media

This article investigates whether exposure to extreme television media informs citizens about politics. Using lab experiments with both student and non-student samples, I find that extreme media produce higher levels of political knowledge and that they also produce higher levels of negative affect among viewers compared with control groups. I also show that extreme media are at least as informative as traditional news. This research adds to the growing literature on media effects in a polarized media environment, showing that extreme television media can have a beneficial impact on at least one important area of U.S. politics: citizen competence. To account for external validity and popular conceptions on extreme media’s non-informative nature, I use cross-sectional data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey finding that extreme television viewership correlates with greater political knowledge, while controlling for other known predictors.

Partisan Enclaves or Shared Media Experiences? A Network Approach to Understanding Citizens’ Political News Environments

The abundance of political media outlets raises concerns that citizens isolate themselves to likeminded news, leaving the public with infrequent shared media experiences and little exposure to disagreeable information. Network analysis of 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey data (N = 57,967) indicates these worries are exaggerated, as general interest news outlets like local newspapers and non-partisan television news are central to the public’s media environment. Although there is some variation between the media diets of Republicans and Democrats (FOX News and conservative talk radio are central to Republicans’ information network), neither group appears to engage in active avoidance of disagreeable information. Individuals across the political spectrum are not creating partisan “echo chambers” but instead have political media repertoires that are remarkably similar.

Following the News? Reception of Uncivil Partisan Media and the Use of Incivility in Political Expression

Partisan, pundit-based media gets blamed for making political discourse more uncivil, and studies on incivility in mediated discourse have found that uncivil political media can induce negative reactions in audiences. However, how use of uncivil media affects the way individuals express their political views has yet to receive substantial scholarly attention. I hypothesize that tuning in to uncivil political media leads to an increased propensity to use incivility in textual political expression. I develop an index to identify incivility in political expressions, and test my hypothesis using panel data analysis and an open-ended survey item in the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey. I find that, consistent with my hypothesis, use of uncivil media—specifically pundit cable news and political talk radio—leads to an increased use of incivility when expressing text-based political opinions. Furthermore, this only occurs with reception of like-minded uncivil political media. I note the implications this has for online political discourse and effective deliberation.

Participation, Online and Otherwise: What's the Difference for Policy Preferences?

ObjectiveOne explanation for why voters’ preferences are privileged by policymakers is that voters are likely to communicate their preferences through additional avenues as well. We examine this “communication hypothesis” by comparing the policy preferences of different types of political participators.MethodsWe analyze the National Annenberg Election Survey (2008) using latent class analysis to identify different types of political participators and multinomial logistic regression to compare the policy preferences of these participator types.ResultsVoters who also engage in additional online and/or offline political acts have policy preferences that differ in a number of meaningful ways from those who “only” vote.ConclusionThe findings indicate that prior research has overlooked important evidence on the connection between citizen participation and political outcomes due to a primary focus on the act of voting. This study suggests how future research can assess the impact of citizens’ broader patterns of political participation.

Polls and Elections Party Identification in the 2012 Presidential Election

In 2000, 2004, and 2008 the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) utilized the rolling cross‐section National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) to analyze changes in self‐identified party affiliation across the course of the campaigns. Using APPC's Institutions of Democracy 2012 Political Knowledge 6‐wave telephone survey, conducted during the final two months of the campaign and immediately following the election, we compared shifts in party affiliation to comparable periods in those prior three elections. The analysis of the relatively shortened periods, examined as cross‐sections, show a more fixed affiliation. Nonetheless, there is variability from election to election especially among self‐identified Independents.

ATTITUDES ABOUT SOCIO-MORAL ISSUES AMONG RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR YOUTH

Recent headlines suggest that Americans, and American youth in particular, are growing more liberal in their attitudes about social and moral issues. Do these trends suggest that the oft discussed “culture wars” are nearing an end? We examine this possibility by asking whether younger generations of religious and secular Americans do indeed espouse more liberal attitudes about sociomoral issues than their counterparts in older generations. We focus specifically on differences within and across religious groups in attitudes about four issues: abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, and the environment. We are especially interested in comparing generational differences in attitudes about high profile, “old-line” wedge issues (abortion and same-sex marriage) in the culture wars with newer, lower profile issues (stem cell research and the environment). Using the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey, we find that religious youth are generally not more liberal than older religious individuals.

Exposure to Ideological News and Perceived Opinion Climate

Spiral-of-silence theory assumes that a monolithic stream of messages from mainstream media, leaving little ability for audiences to seek ideologically congruent news, affects people’s perceptions of the distribution of opinion in society. While these assumptions may have been valid when Noelle-Neumann developed her theory forty years ago, the new media landscape, characterized by the proliferation of ideological media outlets, makes them seem outdated. Do audiences of conservative-leaning media perceive a conservative opinion climate while audiences of liberal-leaning media perceive a more liberal distribution of opinion? And if so, what are the consequences? We examine these questions using two data sets collected in extremely different contexts (Study 1 in the context of the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, n = 519; Study 2, in the context of the 2004 U.S. presidential elections using the National Annenberg Election Survey, n = 9,058). In both studies, selective exposure to ideological media outlets was associated with opinion climate perceptions that were biased in the direction of the media outlets’ ideologies. In Study 2, we also demonstrated that partisan selective exposure indirectly contributes to political polarization, and that this effect is mediated by opinion climate perceptions.

Press Effects, Public Opinion, and Gender

The press had great potential to influence perceptions of Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign, given her relative obscurity when picked to be the Republican vice-presidential nominee. Prior literature on press treatment of women running for national office suggests that Palin was likely to receive coverage that disadvantaged her due to her gender. We scrutinize press coverage of Palin’s campaign for evidence that she was treated differently and that these differences affected public opinion. Our sample of over 2,500 individual newspaper articles published during the campaign is paired with the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey. We demonstrate that Palin’s coverage differed in significant ways from that of her male counterpart. Her gender, appearance, and family status were disproportionately mentioned in her coverage, and such mentions tended to dampen public opinion about her. In addition, the tone of Palin’s coverage was markedly negative, increasingly so over time, and was significantly related to reader opinion about her. While Palin was a unique candidate for national-level office, these findings should give pause to those concerned with equitable press treatment of women on the campaign trail.

Presidential Campaigns and the Fundamentals Reconsidered

The contrast between the predictability of presidential elections and the variability of early polls has come to be viewed as evidence that campaigns provide crucial information to voters. We argue that unmotivated survey respondents offering minimally acceptable answers (i.e., satisficing) offers an additional explanation for the classic conundrum of why the polls vary when the election outcome is predictable. The analysis relies on data from the National Annenberg Election Survey, a natural experiment that results from California’s election laws, and the 2000 ANES survey mode experiment. The results support the claim that respondents’ motivation to engage the survey question, not the information provided by the campaign, is the most important determinant of whether vote intentions reflect the “correctly” weighted fundamentals. We conclude by discussing the implications of this finding for both survey-based and experimental studies of campaign effects.

Loud and Clear: Effects of Homogenous and Extreme Partisan Media Diets

Though the explosion of cable television and talk-radio programming allows individuals to select opinionated media from only one side of the political spectrum, most Americans consume a mix of programming, with varying degrees of bias across the ideological spectrum. Research on partisan media typically evaluates the independent effects of likeminded, crosscutting and neutral exposure in isolation, yet the effects of media consumption likely depend on an individual's overall media diet in aggregate. The ambiguity of theoretical approaches regarding mixed media diets suggests the need for empirical research. One line of reasoning predicts that slanted diets will generate more extreme attitudes and greater participation than evenhanded diets, while a second line of reasoning predicts the opposite. We test the effects of media diet composition on issue attitudes and campaign participation using the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES). To do so, we construct of novel measure of the relative balance of each respondent's media diet based on questions about their consumption of 73 different entertainment and news programs. Within-subjects and matching analyses indicate that slanted media diets increase campaign participation, but not issue polarization. This article provides a theoretical and empirical basis for future research on the political effects of real-world media consumption.

Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality

To what extent do members of Congress respond unequally to people in different economic situations? How does partisan control of the agenda change the way in which Senators respond to the poor? Using data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, and multiple roll call votes, I examine Senate responsiveness for the 107th through 111th Congresses. The results show consistent responsiveness toward upper income constituents. Moreover, Republicans are more responsive than Democrats to middle-income constituents in the 109th Congress, and a case study of the 107th Senate reveals that responsiveness toward the wealthy increases once Democrats take control of the chamber.

Who Watches Presidential Debates?: Measurement Problems in Campaign Effects Research

To examine whether a campaign event affected candidate preferences or candidate knowledge, survey researchers need to know who was exposed to the event. Using the example of presidential debates, this study shows that survey respondents do not accurately report their exposure to even the most salient campaign events. Two independent methods are used to assess the validity of self-reported debate exposure. First, survey estimates are compared to Nielsen estimates, which track exposure automatically. Second, the temporal stability of self-reports across independent daily estimates in the National Annenberg Election Survey is analyzed. Both approaches indicate low validity of self-reports. Self-reported debate audiences are approximately twice as big as comparable Nielsen estimates. Independent random samples generate widely divergent audience estimates for the same debate depending on when the survey was conducted. The second finding demonstrates low validity of self-reports without assuming validity of Nielsen estimates (or any other benchmark). The low validity of self-reported debate exposure poses a major obstacle for campaign effects research. Without valid measures of who was exposed to a campaign event, research cannot establish the causal impact of the event.

Intramedia Moderation, Electoral Ambivalence, and Electoral Decision Making

The majority of political communication research either studies a single media outlet in isolation of other outlets or focuses on the competing effects of multiple outlets. This study uses 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey data to go beyond these typical approaches to show the moderation-based complementary effects of two-sided messages (e.g., network TV news) relative to one-sided oriented outlets (e.g., FOX News) on attitudinal ambivalence. In addition, this study places ambivalence within a larger communicative process and shows that ambivalence mediates the relationship between consumption of political media and when citizens decide who to support during elections.

Beyond Opinion Leaders

The number of Americans who report engaging in interpersonal persuasion during elections has drastically increased over the past decade. While past studies have demonstrated the impact of such proselytizing on vote choice, the author finds substantial evidence that it may also have larger democratic benefits, both for those attempting to persuade and for those whom they choose to target. Data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey suggest that (a) attempting to persuade contributes to people’s ability to give reasons in support of both their own preferred candidate and the opposing candidate, and (b) persuasive conversation is a powerful channel for the spread of political information from the more engaged to the less engaged.

I Knew it All Along! Evaluating Time-of-Decision Measures in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign

This paper evaluates the two most common methods of measuring voter time-of-decision—the recall method and the panel method—and asks whether the two methods are consistent with each other. Using data from the National Annenberg Election Survey collected during the 2008 U.S. presidential election, the findings suggest that these two methods measure different concepts, and thus cannot be used interchangeably. Furthermore, discrepancies between the two methods suggest that the accepted model of early, campaign, and late decision-making should be adjusted to account for a fourth group of voters that never changes their vote intention, but does not truly commit to that intention until later in the campaign. The concept of uncommitted early deciders is offered to describe this group, created by combining the two methods.