Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Communications

The European Journal of Communication Research

Ed. by Averbeck-Lietz, Stefanie / d'Haenens, Leen

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.744
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.147

CiteScore 2017: 1.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.703
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.736

Online
ISSN
1613-4087
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Fragmentation in high-choice media environments from a micro-perspective: Effects of selective exposure on issue diversity in individual repertoires

Pablo Porten-Cheé / Christiane Eilders
Published Online: 2018-10-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2013

Abstract

Online communication is often seen to promote audience fragmentation because it facilitates selective exposure and therefore is likely to divide audiences into sub-publics that hardly share common issues with other sub-publics. This study takes a micro-perspective on fragmentation by focusing on issue diversity in media items users have encountered in a particular week. Diversity was assessed via content analyses based on online diaries of 645 participants who recorded their media use concerning the German debates on climate change and federal elections. Findings show lower degrees of diversity for users of non-journalistic online media than for users of journalistic mass media.

Keywords: fragmentation; selective exposure; issue diversity; media repertoires

Funding: This work was supported by the German Research Foundation [research unit “Political Communication in the Online World”, subproject 2, grant number 1381].

References

  • Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election. Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery – LinkKDD ’05 (pp. 36–43). Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1134271.1134277.Google Scholar

  • Agresti, A., & Agresti, B. F. (1978). Statistical analysis of qualitative variation. Sociological Methodology, 9, 204–237.Google Scholar

  • An, J., Cha, M., Gummadi, K., & Crowcroft, J. (2011). Media landscape in Twitter: A world of new conventions and political diversity. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Menlo Park, CA, USA: AAAI. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/view/2825Google Scholar

  • Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar

  • Bennett, L. W., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Boczkowski, P. J. (2010). News at work: Imitation in an age of information abundance. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Borah, P., Thorson, K., & Hwang, H. (2015). Causes and consequences of selective exposure among political blog readers: The role of hostile media perception in motivated media use and expressive participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 186–199.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 89–96).Google Scholar

  • Cotton, J. L. (1985). Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 11–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Dylko, I., & McCluskey, M. (2012). Media effects in an era of rapid technological transformation: A case of user-generated content and political participation. Communication Theory, 22(3), 250–278.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Eveland, W. P., & Hively, M. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogenity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224.Google Scholar

  • Gaines, B. J., & Mondak, J. J. (2009). Typing together? Clustering of ideological types in online social networks. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3/4), 216–231.Google Scholar

  • Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265–285.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gehrau, V. (2013). Issue diversity in the internetage: Changes in nominal issue diversity in Germany between 1994 and 2005. Studies in Communication Media, 2(1), 129–142.Google Scholar

  • Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839.Google Scholar

  • Gil de Zúñiga, H., Weeks, B., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2017). Effects of the news-minds-me perception in communication: Social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 105–123.Google Scholar

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar

  • Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, T. (Ed.) (2009). Media choice: A theoretical and empirical overview. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Hasebrink, U., & Popp, J. (2006). Media repertoires as a result of selective media use. A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns of exposure. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 31(3), 369–387.Google Scholar

  • Haßler, J., Maurer, M., & Oschatz, C. (2014). Media logic and political logic online and offline. Journalism Practice, 8(3), 326–341.Google Scholar

  • Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. D., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or “cyberghettos”? A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 60–82.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, S. J. (2014). A repertoire approach to cross-platform media use behavior. New Media & Society, 18(3), 353–372.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 971–977.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, Y., Hsu, S.-H., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498–516.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426–448.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • McQuail, D. (1997). Audience analysis. London, New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Mutz, D. C., & Young, L. (2011). Communication and public opinion: Plus ça change? Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 1018–1044.Google Scholar

  • Neuman, W. R., Park, Y. J., & Panek, E. (2012). Tracking the flow of information into the home: An empirical assessment of the digital revolution in the U.S. from 1960–2005. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1022–1041.Google Scholar

  • Porten-Cheé, P., Haßler, J., Jost, P. B., Eilders, C., & Maurer, M. (2018). Popularity cues in online media: Theoretical and methodological perspectives in political communication research. Studies in Communication and Media, 7(2), 210–230.Google Scholar

  • Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592.Google Scholar

  • Prior, M. (2009). Improving media effects research through better measurement of news exposure. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 893–908.Google Scholar

  • Schäfer, M. S., Ivanova, A., & Schmidt, A. (2013). What drives media attention for climate change? Explaining issue attention in Australian, German and Indian print media from 1996 to 2010. International Communication Gazette, 76(2), 152–176.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Schönbach, K., de Waal, E., & Lauf, E. (2005). Online and print newspapers: Their impact on the extent of the perceived public agenda. European Journal of Communication, 20(2), 245–258.Google Scholar

  • Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R., & Friedlingstein, P. (2009). Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(6), 1704–1709.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Introduction: Making sense of the mediatization of politics. Journalism Practice, 8(3), 245–257.Google Scholar

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Taneja, H., Webster, J. G., Malthouse, E. C., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). Media consumption across platforms: Identifying user-defined repertoires. New Media & Society, 14(6), 951–968.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Tewksbury, D. (2005). The seeds of audience fragmentation: Specialization in the use of online news sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(3), 332–348.Google Scholar

  • de Waal, E., & Schönbach, K. (2008). Presentation style and beyond: How print newspapers and online news expand awareness of public affairs issues. Mass Communication & Society, 11(2), 161–176.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Weaver, B., & Wuensch, K. (2013). SPSS and SAS programs for comparing Pearson correlations and OLS regression coefficients. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 880–895.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 39–56.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Webster, J. G., & Phalen, P. (1997). The mass audience: Rediscovering the dominant model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-10-17


Citation Information: Communications, ISSN (Online) 1613-4087, ISSN (Print) 0341-2059, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2013.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in