copyright by soo-hye han 2008
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright
by
Soo-Hye Han
2008
The Dissertation Committee for Soo-Hye Han Certifies that this is the approved
version of the following dissertation:
The Untold Story:
Portrayals of Electoral Participation in Print News Coverage of
American Presidential Campaigns, 1948-2004
Committee:
Sharon E. Jarvis, Supervisor
Roderick P. Hart
Barry Brummett
Natalie (Talia) Jomini Stroud
Maxwell McCombs
The Untold Story:
Portrayals of Electoral Participation in Print News Coverage of
American Presidential Campaigns, 1948-2004
by
Soo-Hye Han, B.A.; M.P.I.A.
Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin
August, 2008
Dedication
To my parents, with love and appreciation
v
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the help and support of so
many individuals. First and foremost, I would like to thank the members of my
dissertation committee. I am very grateful to Dr. Maxwell McCombs for his wisdom and
encouragement over the years. Without his pioneering research three decades ago, this
dissertation could not have been conceived. Dr. Roderick P. Hart has been instrumental to
my scholarly development from the day I stepped foot on UT campus. He showed me
what it takes to be a good scholar through his impeccable example. I am indebted to Dr.
Talia Stroud for her invaluable suggestions and insights throughout this project. She
taught me how to be bold yet meticulous in my research. I appreciate Dr. Barry
Brummett for broadening my horizons both academically and in life. He showed me the
joy in exploring the world of the unfamiliar.
There are not enough words and space to express my appreciation and admiration
for my advisor, Dr. Sharon Jarvis. She has been my biggest supporter throughout my
graduate career and has always believed in me even when I couldn’t. Without her
constant support and guidance, I would not have been where I am today. Dr. Jarvis is my
vi
hero, and I am eternally indebted to her confidence, optimism, generosity, and
mentorship.
In addition to my committee, I would like to thank several individuals who were
vital to the completion of this dissertation. I am grateful to Dr. Nicholas Valentino for his
valuable advice on experimental design, to Emo Rosas, Carla Wright, and Nicole Laster
for coding newspaper articles with me, to Becky LaVally for her keen journalistic advice,
and to Mary Dixson and my colleagues at the Strauss Institute for providing a warm,
friendly work environment.
My dear friends and dissertation buddies, Amanda Davis, Lisa Perks, and Jennifer
Asenas, deserve special thanks for reading my chapters, for listening to my hopes and
fears, and for cheering me up with inspirational mixed CDs, cupcakes and tea. Because of
these smart, fearless, truly compassionate women, I survived the toughest of my
dissertation days.
There is another set of extraordinary people who deserve special appreciation for
nurturing me and providing me a home away home during my many years at UT. I am
truly grateful to Margaret Surratt for her grounded wisdom, Jennifer Betancourt for her
contagious smile, Deanna Matthews for her boundless magic, and Susan Corbin for her
continuous counsel. Their warmth and kindness kept me physically, mentally and
emotionally healthy over the years.
I am also thankful for the support and friendship of John & Hilary Lithgow, Gabe
& Pam Levine, Tomoko Ikeda, Sae Oshima, and Stephanie Brown. These individuals
vii
touched my life and made my life in Austin rich and nothing but a blast. I cherish their
friendship and will always remember the good times we spent together.
It simply would not have been possible for me to come this far without the love
and support of my family. My parents have been the best role models that I could ever
hope for and a source of my strength, courage, and pride. Aboji, Omoni, thank you for
providing me with endless love and possibilities. I am who I am today because of you. I
am also thankful to my two brothers for growing up fast so that I didn’t have to and to my
sister-in-law, niece and nephew for cheering me up with much-needed comic relief from
across the ocean.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Matthew Blomberg for
his support, patience, and unconditional love throughout this process. He found the best
in me even when things were difficult and gave me peace of mind when I needed it the
most. The size of his heart is bigger than Texas, and I feel immensely blessed to have him
beside me always and forever.
viii
The Untold Story:
Portrayals of Electoral Participation in Print News Coverage of
American Presidential Campaigns, 1948-2004
Publication No._____________
Soo-Hye Han, Ph.D.
The University of Texas at Austin, 2008
Supervisor: Sharon E. Jarvis
This dissertation was inspired by two conflicting patterns: the United States is
very proud of its democratic tradition, yet has the second lowest voter turnout rate in the
world. In order to better understand America’s electoral hypocrisy and the decline in
voter turnout, this dissertation examined how Americans have been encouraged to think
about the vote, the voting process and their roles as voters through news media.
Specifically, this dissertation asked: (1) How have voters and voting been portrayed in
American newspapers from 1948-2004? (2) Have these portrayals changed over time?
And (3) what are some potential implications of these patterns for the electorate? To
answer these questions, an extensive content analysis and a set of experiments were
conducted.
In the content analysis, several electoral key terms pertaining to the electoral
participation (Vote, Voter, Voting, Election and Electorate—and their derivatives) were
ix
located in the Campaign Mapping Project text-base and were subjected to quantitative
and qualitative coding techniques. Findings indicate that while (1) voters were
increasingly mentioned in print newspapers over time, (2) they were not featured
positively, (3) were cast in the shadow of elites, (4) were rarely reminded of democratic
responsibilities, and (5) were not connected to the past or each other in election print
news coverage. In addition to these dominant patterns, the data also revealed that voters
were more likely to be featured as (1) empowered agents in the democratic system
between 1948-1968, (2) subsumed under opinion polls and as pawns of elites between
1972-2000, and (3) faced with challenges in the electoral process in 2004.
Two on-line experiments (one with the general population and another with
college students) were conducted to test the effects of the empowered portrayal of voters
found in1948-1968. Results indicated that the empowered portrayal of voters increased
citizens’ participatory intentions and trust in news media (college students reported these
positive outcomes and more). These findings suggest that the way print news media cover
voters and electoral participation may have important socialization effects on citizens’
political attitudes as well as some important practical implications for the press and
journalists.
x
Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures .................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter 1. On the Study of American Electoral Participation............................... 1
Why Study Voting? .................................................................................... 3 Why Study Voting Today? ......................................................................... 7
Why Study Voting in the News?............................................................... 12
The Theory of Attribute Agenda-Setting................................................... 15
Overview of the Dissertation .................................................................... 17
Chapter 2. Methods ........................................................................................... 19
The Campaign Mapping Project................................................................ 20
Methodology ............................................................................................ 21 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 34
Chapter 3. Portrayals of American Electoral Participation (1948-2004) ............. 36
Voters Are Increasingly Mentioned in News Coverage ............................. 37
Voters Are Not Featured Positively........................................................... 42 Voters Are Cast in the Shadow of Elites ................................................... 46
Voters Are Rarely Reminded of Democratic Responsibilities ................... 50
Voters Are Not Connected to the Past or Each Other ................................ 54
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 61
Chapter 4. Portrayals of American Electoral Participation (1948-1968, 1972-2000
and 2004).................................................................................................. 63
News Coverage of Electoral Participation: 1948–1968.............................. 64
News Coverage of Electoral Participation: 1972–2000.............................. 74 News Coverage of Electoral Participation: 2004 ....................................... 80
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 88
xi
Chapter 5. Effects of Portrayals in the News: General Population...................... 90
Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 92 Methodology ............................................................................................ 96
Results.....................................................................................................104
Discussion ...............................................................................................114
Chapter 6. Effects of Portrayals in the News: College Students.........................118 Political Disengagement of Youth............................................................119
Hypotheses ..............................................................................................124
Methodology ...........................................................................................125
Results.....................................................................................................129 Discussion ...............................................................................................140
Chapter 7. Conclusion ......................................................................................144
Contributions...........................................................................................146
Limitations ..............................................................................................153 Questions for Future Research .................................................................156
Conclusion ..............................................................................................158
References........................................................................................................160
Vita ................................................................................................................179
xii
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Electoral Key Terms in Study .......................................................................24 Table 3.1. Electoral Key Terms by Context Variable .....................................................43 Table 3.2. Electoral Key Terms by Frame Variable .......................................................51 Table 3.3. Electoral Key Terms by Time Variable .........................................................55 Table 5.1. Effects of Empowered Voter Portrayal........................................................105 Table 5.2. Moderating Effects of Partisanship..............................................................110 Table 5.3. Moderating Effects of Political Knowledge.................................................112 Table 6.1. Effects of Empowered Voter Portrayal on Young Voters ............................130 Table 6.2. Moderating Effects of Partisanship among Young Voters ...........................136 Table 6.3. Moderating Effects of Political Knowledge among Young Voters...............138
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections in the United States, 1948-2004......39 Figure 3.2. Electoral Key Terms Appeared in Newspapers in the Campaign Mapping
Project (CMP), 1948-2004.....................................................................................39 Figure 3.3. “Voters,” “People,” and “Citizens” Appeared in Newspapers in the CMP,
1948-2004 .............................................................................................................41 Figure 3.4. Electoral Key Terms by Associations Variable ............................................47 Figure 3.5. Electoral Key Terms by Quality Variable ....................................................57 Figure 3.6. Subcategories in “Demographics” (in Quality Variable) ..............................60 Figure 4.1. “Party” Associations over Time...................................................................65 Figure 4.2. Mobilization Variable over Time.................................................................68 Figure 4.3. Goals and Rewards Variables over Time......................................................70 Figure 4.4. Behavior Variable over Time.......................................................................73 Figure 4.5. “Opinion Poll” Associations over Time .......................................................76 Figure 4.6. “Numbers” and “Demographic” (in Quality Variable) over Time.................79 Figure 4.7. Frame Variable over Time ...........................................................................81 Figure 4.8. “Government” Associations over Time........................................................82 Figure 4.9. Challenge Variable over Time .....................................................................84 Figure 4.10. Voting as a “Right” (in Assumptions Variable) over Time.........................87 Figure 5.1. Newspaper Article Used in the Experiment..................................................99
1
Chapter 1. On the Study of American Electoral Participation
I believe it’s necessary for the Iraqi people to vote on January the 30th
because it provides an opportunity for people to participate in
democracy… It will give the Iraqi people a chance to become invested in
the future of that vital country.
– President George W. Bush, December 6th, 2004
Jill Davidson laughs when asked if she votes. “I don’t know where to go
register, and reason No. 2, I’m just lazy.”
– Christian Science Monitor, October 3rd, 2000
The United States prides itself on being a model of democracy in the modern
world. As seen in President George W. Bush’s remarks, it is not uncommon for the
Unites States to comment on the fundamental freedoms, civil rights and electoral
practices in other countries. At the same time, however, when it comes to actual electoral
participation, millions of Americans do not live up to the United States’ standards for
other countries. Notice the attitude of Jill Davidson, a 30-something massage therapist
and restaurant hostess in Miami. As her words reveal, the privilege of voting—the very
act that President Bush uses to help legitimize a war in Iraq—is something that can be
forsaken quite easily inside our borders. It is no small irony that the United States is so
proud of its democratic tradition and has the second lowest voter turnout rate in the
2
world, a rate that has been steadily declining since the 1960s.1 How could all of these
things be true?
Political scholars have investigated America’s troubling state of electoral
participation and have offered a number of explanations. To date, though, they have left a
critical relationship unexplained: how Americans have been encouraged to think about
the vote, the voting process, and their roles as voters through the news media. In order to
better understand America’s electoral hypocrisy and the news media’s influence on the
political socialization process, this dissertation asks the following questions: (1) How
have voters and voting been portrayed in American newspapers from 1948 to 2004? (2)
Have these portrayals changed over time? (3) What are some potential implications of
these patterns for the electorate? To answer these questions, I will employ the content
analytic method to examine several keywords pertaining to the electoral system and
participation (Vote, Voter, Voting, Election, Electorate—and their derivatives2) in
selected newspapers from 1948 to 2004. I will also conduct a set of experiments to test
the effects of these portrayals on political attitudes among the nations’ youngest voters
(college students between 18 and 28 years-old) and older citizens (a national
representative sample of adults between 18 and 83 years-old). The remainder of this
chapter describes how and why this study is undertaken.
1 It should be noted that there are some exceptions to this downward trend: voter turnout spiked in 1992 and 2004 (U.S. Census). It should also be noted that McDonald and Popkin (2001) argue that the decline in voter turnout since the 1960s may be something of an “illusion” made by a methodological flaw. However, mounting evidence suggests otherwise. For the data supporting the decline in voter turnout since 1972, see Patterson (2002) and Wattenberg (2002). 2 I will examine the words voter, voters, vote, votes, voting, election, elections, electorate, and electorates.
3
WHY STUDY VOTING? It is no accident that President Bush stresses the importance of voting in Iraq, a
country transitioning to a more democratic system. Democracy is the government of the
people, by the people, and for the people, and voting serves the most fundamental
function in building and sustaining democracy. Robert Dahl (1998) suggests that for a
country to be democratic, there are six minimal requirements to be met:
1. Elected officials—control over government decisions about policy is
constitutionally vested in officials elected by citizens;
2. Free, fair, and frequent elections—elected officials are chosen in frequent and
fairly conducted elections in which coercion is comparatively uncommon;
3. Freedom of expression—citizens have a right to express themselves without
danger of severe punishment on political matters broadly defined;
4. Alternative sources of information—citizens have a right to seek out
alternative and independent sources of information from other citizens,
experts, newspapers, magazines, books, telecommunication, and the like;
5. Associational autonomy—to achieve their various rights, citizens also have a
right to form relatively independent associations or organizations, including
independent political parties and interest groups; and
6. Inclusive citizenship—no adult permanently residing in the country and
subject to its laws can be denied the rights that are available to others and are
necessary to the five political institutions just listed (p. 85-86).
4
As detailed in items one and two, here, voting is generally agreed upon as a foundation
for democracy.
While the centrality of voting has been generally agreed upon, it has been
fashionable for post-materialist scholars (Inglehart, 1997) and those following that
tradition (Dalton, 2007), to question and sometimes overlook the centrality of voting to a
democratic state. For this reason, it can be helpful to review, in some detail, seminal
arguments identifying voting as central to a democracy.
Besides the selection of leaders, voting serves several important functions that are
crucial to the health of democracy. Indeed, it is through voting that: the legitimacy of a
government is assessed; the workings of government are made effective and efficient; the
electors learn to become responsible citizens; and citizens protect their interests (Pomper,
1968).
First, voting provides legitimacy to government (Goodwin-Gill, 2006). According
to Lipset (1963), legitimacy entails “the capacity of the system to engender and maintain
the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the
society” (p. 64). O’Donnell (2007) argues that “across most of the globe today, the
ultimate claim of a political regime to be legitimate—or at least acceptable—rests on the
kind of popular consent that purportedly finds expression in the act of free voting” (p. 6).
In liberal democratic states, legitimacy of government is achieved only when leaders are
elected by consent of the governed. According to John Locke, “The liberty of man in
society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the
commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what the
5
legislature shall enact according to the trust put in it” (cited in Pomper, 1968, p. 25-26).
The moral principle of popular sovereignty is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche
that no other form of government than elective government can be considered legitimate.
Second, elections increase the power of government by providing elites authority
to govern. By selecting government officials via their ballots, citizens regard their
government as legitimate and their decisions as “morally binding” (Dahl, 1976, p. 60). A
government established by the will of the people gains power through its legitimacy, and
their decisions are upheld because of political equality embedded in electoral processes
(e.g., every citizen has a right to vote, one person one vote, etc.). Thus, elections increase
the power of government “without determining the specific actions of that government”
(Pomper, 1968, p. 26-27) and make the workings of government more effective and
efficient. Studies show that elections do indeed increase citizens’ support for and loyalty
to their political systems (Kornberg & Clarke, 1992).
Third, voting contributes to the personal development of the electors (Pateman,
1970; Pomper, 1968; Thompson, 1970). When citizens engage in electoral activities,
these individuals are called upon, theoretically at least, to consider not only their own
immediate interests, but also the public interests as a whole. Conceptually, this process
stimulates a sense of public responsibility in voters and broadens their perspectives. This
position is nicely articulated by John Stuart Mill who wrote that a citizen is “called upon,
when so engaged, to weigh interests not his own; to be guided in cases of conflicting
claims, by another rule than his private partialities . . . He is made to feel himself one of
6
the public, and whatever is for their benefit to be for his benefit” (cited in Pomper, 1968,
p. 28).
Mill’s observations are evident in citizens’ voting patterns. Studies show that
voters engage in deliberative processes that put public interests before private concerns.
When making electoral decisions, voters are more likely to engage in “sociotropic
voting” than “pocketbook voting”—i.e., evaluating the economy as a whole rather than
their own personal financial situations (Miller & Shanks, 1996). Moreover, citizens
participate in electoral process out of their sense of civic duty (Riker & Ordeshook,
1968).
Finally, and most importantly, the ballot provides a check on power and
protection against tyranny. Macedo et al. (2005) argue “there is not now, and never will
be, a class of empathetic, non-self-interested elites who can be trusted to advance the
common good” (p. 12) so that public must be vigilant in holding elites accountable for
their actions. Writing in the eighteenth century, James Madison shared a similar concern
and suggested that elections are the only mechanism that protects public against tyranny.
In Federalist No. 52, Madison wrote, “it is particularly essential that the [representatives]
should have an immediate dependence on, and intimate sympathy with, the people.
Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which the dependence and
sympathy can be effectually secured” (cited in Pomper, 1968, p. 30). Elections provide
opportunities for citizens to reward or punish their representatives with their votes, and
therefore, work to ensure that the interests of citizens are served.
7
But this check on power, of course, is not automatic. For the mechanism of
dependence to work properly, citizens have to exercise their right to vote. As Pomper
(1968) suggests, “Unless the electorate is vigilant in defense of its interests, it may find
these interests neglected. Protection is an important indirect effect of elections, but it
demands attention on the part of the voters” (p. 32).
For these reasons, voting has been regarded by several political scientists as the
most fundamental aspect of democracy, and its functions are imperative for the health of
democracy. Voting provides legitimacy and stability to government, makes the workings
of government effective and efficient, educates citizens, and protects public interests.
Participation in electoral processes on the part of citizens is essential in ensuring a proper
functioning of democracy.
WHY STUDY VOTING TODAY?
Despite the centrality of voting in democracy, Americans have turned away from
electoral politics for quite some time. The percentage of voters casting presidential
ballots has largely declined since the 1960s, and the United States has the second lowest
voter turnout among other developed nations (Wattenberg, 2002).3 While almost two
thirds of eligible voters (62.8%) cast their ballots in 1960, barely half of the eligible
voters (51.2%) did so in 2000 (Wattenberg, 2002). In terms of young adults between 18
and 24, only one in three (36.1%) cast their vote in the 2000 presidential election, a drop
of fifteen percentage points since they first gained the right to vote in 1971 (U.S. Census,
3 See footnote 1.
8
2002).4 While these downward trends were briefly suspended in the elections of 1992 and
2004 (and while the election of 2008 is anticipated to draw higher voter turnout), these
general patterns merit scholarly scrutiny.
Not only is the low level of voter turnout detrimental to the health of democracy,
it threatens the future of democracy as well. In the field of psychology, researchers
suggest that today’s behavior predicts future behavior (Freeman & Frazer, 1966). If
people are indeed creatures of habit, then, it is plausible that if one votes in an election,
s/he is more likely to vote in future elections. At the same time, if one does not
participate in electoral activities, s/he is less likely to participate in future elections. These
patterns have been documented by Gerber, Green, and Shachar (2003) in a large-scale
field experiment involving 25,200 registered voters. Based on their longitudinal study in
1998 and 1999, the authors found that those who voted in 1998 were more likely to vote
in the next election. They write:
The act of voting is self-reinforcing. When people abstain from voting, their
subsequent proclivity for voting declines; when they vote, they become more
likely to vote again. Voting and abstention, in other words, are habit forming.
Attitudes and the environment help explain whether voting habits take root, but
one’s pattern of behavior itself has an independent effect on subsequent conduct
(p. 540).
4 Note that the voter turnout among 18-24 year olds increased in 1992 (48.6%) and 2004 (46.7%) (Lopez, Kirby, & Sagoff, 2005).
9
Another source of concern comes from a reciprocal causal relationship between
the act of voting and a sense of political efficacy (defined as a person’s belief in his/her
ability to influence the political process—internal efficacy—and a person’s belief in
government’s responsiveness—external efficacy). Studies show that not only does a
sense of efficacy influence the likelihood of voting, the act of voting itself also influences
political efficacy. Based on a three-way panel of the Survey Research Center’s 1972-
1974-1976 Election study, Finkel (1985) reveals that voting in national elections
positively affects one’s external efficacy and higher levels of external efficacy lead to
more electoral engagement in the future. On the flip side, then, today’s nonvoting
suggests lower levels of external efficacy, and therefore, less voting in the future.
Low levels of electoral participation among young adults are particularly
concerning considering the effects of political socialization during adolescence. Political
socialization is the process through which persons acquire political orientations (Dawson
& Prewitt, 1969; Easton & Dennis, 1969), are taught values, attitudes and other behaviors
(Hess & Torney, 1967) and learn the political norms deemed acceptable from a prior
generation (Sigel, 1965). The health of a political system arguably hinges on the political
socialization of its youth. Particularly, the period of adolescence is considered the most
impressionable years in political socialization process (Sears, 1975). Political learning
during the adolescent years profoundly influences later political attitudes and behaviors
(Hess & Torney, 1967; Greenstein, 1968; Sears, 1975). Several empirical studies reveal
the effects of preadult political socialization on adult political orientation, attitudes and
behaviors (Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin, & Keeter, 2003; Beck & Jennings, 1982; Conway
10
& Damico, 2001; Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). All of these
researchers suggest that if today’s young adults are not voting, tomorrow’s democracy is
in danger.
Additionally, disengagement from electoral politics among today’s youth can
result in a missed opportunity in socialization for those young people. In general, young
adults possess less experience with and knowledge about political issues and processes
compared to adults, and political campaigns provide opportunity to close the gap
(Bennett, 2000; Sears & Valentino, 1997). Sears and Valentino (1997) write, “To
preadults, politics are usually of rather low visibility, with low ambient levels of exposure
to relevant communication” (p. 47), and therefore, events such as presidential elections
serve as catalysts for preadult socialization. Using a three-way panel study of Wisconsin
families conducted between 1980 and 1981, they show that preadults gain more
knowledge and crystallized attitudes toward parties and candidates during election
periods. Hence, if young adults are not engaged in electoral processes, they are more
likely to miss these socialization gains during election periods.
The decline in voter turnout in general, and among young adults in particular,
goes against several societal and legal changes that should have, in theory, increased
voter turnout since the 1950s in the United States (Wattenberg, 2002). For instance,
scholars have identified education as the most powerful predictor of political
participation (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960; Key, 1966; Wolfinger &
Rosenstone, 1980) Yet the rise in level of education since the 1960s did not bring about
an increase in voter turnout. Patterson (2002) reports, “In 1960, half of the adult
11
population had not finished high school and fewer than 10 percent had graduated from
college. Today, 25 percent hold a college degree and another 25 percent have attended
college” (p. 5). With the rising levels of education, however, we have witnessed a
significant decline in voter turnout.
Other structural improvements did not increase voter turnout, either. Legal
remedies such as the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 26th Amendment
to the United States Constitution in 1971, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993,
and the introduction of various registration flexibilities over the years did indeed increase
the number of registered voters, but have not increased the overall turnout rate (Patterson,
2002). In contrast, overall voter turnout kept declining over these years. Since the decline
of voter turnout contradicts both increases in education and legal efforts toward greater
enfranchisement and most of what has been known about voting behavior, it is
considered to be one of the biggest “puzzles” in American politics (Abramson & Aldrich,
1982; Brody, 1978).
To disentangle the puzzle of electoral participation, scholars have offered
numerous explanations. Some have pointed to a decline of political parties as
intermediaries between citizens and political life (Rosenstone & Hansen, 2003;
Wattenberg, 2002). Others have suggested that it might be a result of generational
replacement of voters and a decrease of social connectedness among citizens (Teixeira,
1992; Putnam 2000). Still others have pointed to a declining psychological involvement
in politics and belief in government responsiveness (Teixeira, 1992) while even others
suggest a sheer amount of electing (Wattenberg, 2002) and long campaigns (Patterson,
12
2002). Scholars have pointed to mass media encouraging cynicism and making citizens
feel clever, informed, and busy (Hart 1999; Patterson, 1993). All of these factors seem to
have contributed to the decline of electoral participation over these years. However, these
scholars have left a critical relationship unexplained: how the news media are socializing
Americans as “voters.” Researchers have studied electoral participation from various
perspectives, but to date, no comprehensive project has specifically examined how
Americans have been encouraged to think about the vote, the voting process, and their
roles as voters by news media. In the following section, I will illustrate why it is
important to study news media’s influence on citizens as an agent of their political
socialization.
WHY STUDY VOTING IN THE NEWS? Political socialization is a complicated endeavor, and a variety of individuals and
institutions play a role in this process. People are politically socialized through their
families, schools, workplaces, churches, and mass media. These various agents have
different effects on the process, and there have been mixed results as to which agent has
the most important effects on how people develop their worldviews (Beck, 1977). Among
these socialization agents, the influence of parents, families, and schools on children’s
political socialization has been examined quite extensively (e.g., Beck & Jennings, 1975;
Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Hess & Torney, 1967; Hyman, 1959; Jennings & Niemi,
1981; Litt, 1963; Merelman, 1980; Nie, Junn, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996; Parker & Buriel,
1997; Yates & Youniss, 1998; Zeigler, 1967).
13
To date, however, the role of news media in political socialization has largely
been ignored (Buckingham, 1997; Calavita, 2003). Treating news media with secondary
importance risks harming our understanding of a dynamic political socialization process.
As Calavita (2003) argues:
News media are of subtle-but-fundamentally powerful ecological importance, not
just because news media engagement interrelates with, and takes place in the
context of, institutions and phenomena like the family, but because all aspects of
the larger culture and society – including family – are themselves shaped by mass
media (p. 23).
Considering the centrality of news media to American life and its effects on the political
socialization process, the cursory attention paid to the role of news media in political
socialization literature limits an understanding of how people come to have certain
political values, beliefs and behaviors from a macro perspective.
Furthermore, the ways in which news media are studied as a socialization agent
binds our understandings of its influence. Quite often, when the role of news media is
examined, the focus is on the acquisition of political knowledge and of partisan attitudes
(e.g., Atkin & Gantz, 1978; Chaffee, Ward, & Tipton, 1970; Dominick 1972; Drew &
Reeves, 1980; Hollander, 1971; Martinelli & Chaffee, 1995; Rubin, 1976). In the field of
communication, however, we know that the news media’s role as a socialization agent is
not limited to providing political information to the public. We know that news media
also provide the broader understandings of what it means to be an active participant in
democratic society.
14
To date, this meaning-making function of news media has been largely
overlooked by researchers in the field of political socialization and mass media. British
scholar Buckingham (1997) iterates a need for examining the role of news media as a
meaning-making agent on individual’s political development. He contends:
Rather than attempting to measure the effectiveness of news in communicating
political information, we should be asking how it enables viewers to construct and
define their relationship with the public sphere. How do news programs position
viewers in relation to the social order –for example, in relation to the sources of
power in society? How do they enable viewers to conceive of the relations
between the personal and the political, and to establish connections to their own
direct experience? How, ultimately, do they define what it means to be a citizen?
(p. 353, italics added).
To sum, then, while political socialization has been largely studied in the field of
political science, a communication approach examining news media’s portrayals of
electoral participation will forge a new perspective in this important process. The
literatures on political socialization demonstrate the importance of news media in
citizens’ political learning process and demand further investigation of how news media
portray a democratic citizenry. Next, I will discuss why a specific theory of media
effects—attribute agenda-setting—is central to this study.
15
THE THEORY OF ATTRIBUTE AGENDA-SETTING
Because of the crucial role that news media play during political campaigns,
media scholars have produced a great amount of literature that investigates the effects of
news media on citizens’ political opinions and attitudes (e.g., Cappella & Jamieson,
1997; Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Patterson, 1993). Among them,
the theory of agenda-setting created by McCombs and Shaw (1972) has become one of
the most influential and extensively examined theories in the field of media effects
(Rogers, Dearing, & Bregman, 1993).
Inspired by Cohen’s (1963) observation that while the mass media may not be
successful much of the time in telling people what to think, “they are stunningly
successful in telling them what to think about” (p. 13), McCombs and Shaw (1972)
examined the transfer of issue salience from the news media to the public during the 1968
presidential election by comparing the news media’s issue salience and what newspaper
readers regarded as the most important problems in their minds. The study revealed that
the issues that were salient in the news became the issues that were salient among the
public. The study showed that the news media set the agenda for the public by
highlighting certain issues. A great number of additional studies followed suit supporting
the theory (Brosius & Kepplinger, 1990; Eaton Jr., 1989; Smith, 1987; Soroka,
2001;Takeshita, 1993; Weaver, 1996; Weaver, Graber, McCombs, & Eyal, 1981; Winter
& Eyal, 1981).
The continuous investigations of the agenda-setting function of news media have
resulted in much fine-tuning and elaboration of the original theory. One of the theories
16
born out of the elaboration and of particular importance to this dissertation is attribute (or
second level) agenda-setting. While the first level agenda-setting hypothesized the
transfer of issue salience from news media to the public (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), the
attribute agenda-setting hypothesizes the transfer of attribute salience from news media
to the public (Kiousis, Bantimaroudis, & Ban, 1999). The core of the attribute agenda-
setting theory indicates that news media often tell us not just “what to think about,” but
“how to think about a topic in the news and sometimes even what opinion to hold about
that topic” (Kim & McCombs, 2007, p. 300).
A number of studies validate the effects of the attribute agenda-setting across the
globe (McCombs, 2004). For instance, McCombs, Llamas, Lopez-Escobar and Lennon
(1997) found that candidate attributes featured in news media were significantly
correlated with perceptions of candidate attributes among the public during the 1995
Spanish regional elections. Golan and Wanta (2001) revealed that voters’ evaluations of
candidates were significantly associated with attributes salient in three newspapers in
New Hampshire during the 2000 presidential primaries in the region. Kiousis et al.
(1999) empirically tested the effects of the attribute agenda-setting and concluded that
people’s perceptions of candidates’ traits reflect portrayals of those traits in newspapers.
Other studies have also found empirical evidence to support the effects of attribute
agenda-setting on candidates (Kim, Scheufele, & Shanahan, 2002; Kiousis, 2003;
McCombs, Lopez-Escobar, & Llamas, 2000) as well as issues (Chyi & McCombs, 2004;
Hester & Gibson, 2003; Kim et al., 2002).
17
Much attention has been paid to the attributes of issues and candidates in news
reports and their effects on the public in the field of media effects, but no one to date has
examined the attributes of citizens (e.g., voters) or civic acts (e.g., electoral participation)
in newspapers and the effects of these portrayals on citizens’ political attitudes. In this
dissertation, I will ask fundamental questions to start a more robust scholarly
conversation about the ways in which news media encourage Americans to think of their
roles as voters and the effects of such coverage. Specifically, these key concerns are: (1)
How have voters and voting been portrayed in American newspapers from 1948 to 2004?
(2) Have these portrayals changed over time? and (3) What are some potential
implications of these patterns for the electorate?
OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION
This dissertation investigates how print news has portrayed voters, voting and the
vote between 1948 and 2004 and the effects of these portrayals.
• Chapter Two describes the content analytic method employed in Chapters Three
and Four and provides a brief preview of experimental design used in Chapters
Five and Six.
• Chapter Three looks at an overall pattern of how voting and voters have been
portrayed over the past sixty years in six newspapers during presidential elections.
• Chapter Four examines changes in these portrayals over time.
• Chapter Five investigates the effects of these portrayals on political beliefs and
attitudes on a random sample of citizens (average age of 45). More specifically,
18
the effects of portrayals of voters on people’s intention to vote, sense of civic
duty, political efficacy, perceived meaningfulness of election, information
seeking, and trust in news media are discussed.
• Chapter Six explores the effects of these portrayals on political beliefs and
attitudes among the nation’s youngest voters (average age of 20), and then,
compares the results among general populations and young adults.
• Chapter Seven reviews major findings from this dissertation, and discusses the
limitations and implications of the study.
The findings point to (1) an “untold” story about voters in the United States, (2) some
potential ways to re-craft this story, that may benefit voters and the press, and (3) many
questions for future research.
19
Chapter 2. Methods
As discussed in Chapter One, political scientists have produced an impressive
amount of literature on electoral participation over the past fifty years, addressing how
individuals make electoral decisions and what contributes to the decline of voter turnout
over the years. In the field of mass communication, media scholars have investigated the
role of news media during elections, and found strong effects of news media in forming
citizens’ political beliefs and attitudes about political issues and candidates. Yet both
camps of scholars have left a critical question unexamined: how electoral participation
has been portrayed in news media and the effects of these portrayals.
This dissertation explores these concerns with two different methods: content
analysis and experiments. In order to track the portrayals of vote, voters, and voting in
news media, an extensive content analysis has been conducted. In order to test the effects
of specific portrayals on citizens’ political beliefs and attitudes, a set of experiments have
also been conducted. This chapter describes these methods and limitations. First, I will
review the Campaign Mapping Project (a dataset this study relies on). Second, the
content analytic methods employed in Chapters Three and Four are described in detail.
Finally, a set of experiments used in Chapters Five and Six are illustrated briefly.
20
THE CAMPAIGN MAPPING PROJECT The Campaign Mapping Project is a multi-year research project directed by
Roderick P. Hart of the University of Texas and Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the
University of Pennsylvania. In this project, Hart and Jamieson collected the campaign
materials (the speeches, advertisements, debates, broadcast news stories, newspaper
accounts, and letters-to-the-editor) produced during presidential election campaigns in the
United States between 1948 and 2004.
Several book projects have emerged from this text-base. First, Hart’s Campaign
Talk (2000) analyzes the language of modern political campaigns using the texts
collected by the Campaign Mapping Project and a computer program called DICTION,
and provides rich understandings of political language and modern campaigns.
Another project that employs the dataset is Jarvis’s Talk of the Party (2005).
Jarvis conducts a “semantic genealogy” of political parties keying on six focal terms
(Democrat, Republican, Independent, Party, Liberal, and Conservative) and traces the
meanings of parties and partisanship in American political discourse over the past fifty
years. By employing an extensive content analysis on a broad range of elite discourse
(Presidential speeches, newspapers, Congressional debates, and civics textbooks), Jarvis
provides unique insights into how parties appear in discourse and how such appearances
influence people’s understandings and relationships of the parties.
Still another project that utilizes the dataset is conducted by Hart, Jarvis, Jennings,
and Smith-Howell (2005). In their book titled Political Keywords: Using Language That
Uses Us, the authors examine eight political keywords (Politics, President, Government,
21
People, Media, Parties, Promises, and Consultants) employed during the presidential
campaigns. By looking closely into the language of political elites used during the
presidential campaign periods over the past fifty years, the authors show us how these
political keywords have changed over time tracing broader political and cultural
development. Combining three distinct but related scholarships—Raymond William’s
constructs (semantic genealogy), Kenneth Burke’s perspective (rhetorical approach), and
Harold Lasswell’s methodology (content analysis)—these studies meticulously examine
meanings attached to specific words and what functions they serve.
While this dissertation employs the same dataset as these researchers, a unique
contribution of this study is to bring together the keyword research tradition and the
theory of attribute agenda-setting. Specifically, like the keyword researchers, this study
focuses in on certain keywords (Vote, Voter, Voting, Election, and Electorate—and their
derivatives) appearing in the Campaign Mapping Project. This brings a longitudinal
approach and a more nuanced unit of analysis to the attribute agenda-setting approach. At
the same time, as in the field of attribute agenda-setting, this study attempts to
empirically verify the influence of the meanings attached to these keywords.
METHODOLOGY
Content Analysis
Content analysis is a research technique for the objective, systematic and
quantitative description of manifest content of communication (Berelson, 1971). As
discussed in the definition, the strengths of this method are that it is objective
22
(researchers’ biases and idiosyncrasies are prevented through inter-coder reliability),
systematic (sample texts are selected through consistent and explicit rules), and
quantitative (analyses an accurate representation of a body of messages) (Wimmer &
Dominick, 1994). In addition, it is an unobtrusive method and effective in analyzing large
amounts of data (Krippendorff, 1980).
This method has high external validity (it is generalizable) and low internal
validity (cannot make claims of the effects of content on an audience). There is a good fit
between this method and prior research on these questions. Content analysis is a common
method in the tradition this project follows. For instance, Hart et al. (1991), Hart (2000),
Hart et al. (2005) and Jarvis (2005) all use content analytic method in their study as well
as McCombs et al. (2000), Hester and Gibson (2003), and Chyi and McCombs (2004).
Keywords. A set of keywords has been selected for this study. They are vote,
voter, voting, election, and electorate (and their derivatives, e.g. voters, votes, elections
and electorates). The voter and electorate are chosen to investigate the agent of electoral
participation; vote and voting are selected to examine the act of electoral participation;
election is chosen to explore the system of electoral participation.
Texts. While there are various media texts that can be analyzed, I chose to
examine newspaper articles since newspapers tend to be the dominant agenda-setter for
other news outlets (McCombs, 2004; Roberts & McCombs, 1994). For this study, six
newspapers were examined. The newspaper articles come from the New York Times,
Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, and
Atlanta Constitution. The New York Times and Washington Post are selected as the elite
23
media that set agenda for other news media outlet. Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times,
and Christian Science Monitor are also widely read newspapers and they add regional
viewpoints. The newspaper articles are gathered during presidential campaign periods
from 1948 to 2004. All the texts for this study come from the Campaign Mapping Project
and have been generously shared by Professors Roderick P. Hart and Kathleen Hall
Jamieson.
Using a Keyword-in-Context program, each keyword has identified with 20
words immediately before and after the keyword. These 41 word clusters serve as my
coding units (Hart et al., 2005; Jarvis, 2005). After locating every instance of each
keyword in the entire database, a stratified random sample was gathered. Originally, I
hoped to analyze a sample of 450 instances for each keyword (i.e., 30 instances of the
keyword x 15 campaign periods between 1948 and 2004) yielding a total of 2, 250 units
coded (i.e., 450 samples x 5 key words). However, one of the keywords, electorate, did
not appear often enough between 1948 and 1968. Therefore, a total of 2,138 terms were
collected. Table 2.1 displays the actual number of instances coded in my content analysis
(please note that a few quantitative statistics were ran on the raw appearance of all 37,491
terms as well; these data are specifically referred to as the “overall number of terms
appearing in the study” vs. “the data coded in my content analysis” throughout the
project).
24
Table 2.1
Electoral Key Terms in Study
_________________________________________________________________ Key Terms n _________________________________________________________________ Voter(s) 450 Vote(s) 450 Voting 450 Election(s) 450 Electorate(s) 338 _________________________________________________________________ Total 2,138 _________________________________________________________________ Note. A stratified random sample of 2,138 out of 37,491 electoral key terms identified in the Campaign Mapping Project dataset were gathered and analyzed in this project.
Coding Processes. I worked with a small group of coders (two undergraduate and
one graduate student). The team was trained for one week on these variables. Following
the trends in the researches in the field, 10% of all texts were coded by two team
members. As the primary coder, I coded all texts in the sample. Inter-coder reliability
statistics show acceptable agreement across coding decisions.5
5 Inter-coder reliability score for each variable is as follows (Cohen’s Kappa): assumption, .90; mobilization agent, .83; association, .91; goals, .96; rewards, .88; role, .86; potency, .88; challenge, .77; context, .83; frame, .91; time, .87; behavior, .93; quality, .88.
25
Coding Scheme. The coding scheme has two components. One of which has a
series of purely descriptive measures. These items are coded to keep track of the source,
year and grammatical usage of each keyword examined in this study.
1. Text # ________
2. Year: ________ 3. Keyword:
1. Voter(s) 2. Vote(s) 3. Voting 4. Election(s) 5. Electorate(s)
4. Grammar:
1. Noun 2. Verb 3. Adjective
Next, this study examined a series of measures guided by literatures on attribute
agenda-setting, political socialization and electoral participation. As discussed before, the
attribute agenda-setting literature suggests that attributes salient in the media become
salient in the public’s mind, and the political socialization literature points to the
significance of the meanings attached to democratic citizenry by news media. In order to
better understand citizens’ perception of their electoral participation and political
socialization process, then, it is important to ask what kinds of attributes are attached to
the voters and their electoral participation in the news media.
In attribute agenda-setting, attributes are defined as “those characteristics and
properties that fill out the picture of each object” (McCombs, 2004, p. 70) and are
26
believed to have two parts: the affective and the substantive dimensions (McCombs et al.,
2000). The affective dimension deals with the tone of news coverage (e.g., whether
candidate attributes are described in positive, negative, or neutral terms) while the
substantive dimension looks at the attributes emphasized in news coverage (e.g., the
candidates’ ideology, qualifications and personality).
In this study, several variables have been created to tap these dimensions.
Specifically, the affective dimension of attribute agenda-setting is examined by the
context variable following the previous studies in attribute agenda-setting. The context
variable examines the tone of electoral participation. The attribute agenda-setting studies
show that whether candidates or issues are described in positive, negative, or neutral
terms in the news influences the public’s evaluation of them (Hester & Gibson, 2003;
McCombs et al., 2000). Following the coding scheme of attribute agenda-setting studies
and the keyword research, context is categorized as follows.
5. Context: overall tone of the article as linked to the voter, voting and vote(s). 1. Positive (“Your vote will move this country forward.”) 2. Negative (“Voting for the third party is complete waste of time.”) 3. Neutral (“You have an option to vote or not to vote.”)
Then, the rest of the variables listed here aim to unpack the substantive attributes
ascribed to electoral participation. These variables are: assumptions, mobilization agent,
association, goals, rewards, frame, role, potency, behavior, challenge, and quality.
The assumption variable explores the basic philosophy behind the act of voting as
discussed in news coverage. Interestingly, there is no agreement on the assumption of
voting in the academic literature. Some scholars argue that voting is a duty (Beekman,
27
1891; Riker & Ordeshook, 1968), while others argue that it is a right (Mayo, 1959) or a
choice (Rational choice theorists, e.g., Downs, 1957; Fiorina, 1981; Popkin, 1991). With
this variable, I will investigate the assumptions of voting that are communicated to
citizens through news media. The variable is coded as follows:
6. Assumption: the assumption of (or philosophy behind) voting 0. None (“There is a controversy over electoral votes.”) 1. Voting as a right (“I urge you to exercise your right to vote.”) 2. Voting as a duty (“Voting is your sacred duty as a citizen.”) 3. Voting as a choice (“You may choose not to vote.”) The next variable taps into the core of political campaigns. Scholars have
proposed different mobilizing agents as having influence on voter turnout. These forces
include: political parties (Leighley, 2001; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Wattenberg,
1998), candidates (Kernell, 1997), or other groups such as family members, the League
of Women Voters, and churches (Gerber & Green, 2000). While there is no agreement on
which mobilization agent has the biggest influence on voter turnout, many seem to agree
that it is the decrease in electoral mobilization that caused the decline in voter turnout for
the past sixty years (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). Rosenstone and Hansen (1993)
suggest, “political participation is the product of strategic interactions of citizens and
leaders. Few people spontaneously take an active part in public affairs. Rather, they
participate when politicians, political parties, interest groups, and activists persuade them
to get involved” (p. 228). I will investigate if voters are portrayed as mobilized in
newspapers, and if so, who is soliciting votes.
28
7. Mobilization agent: an entity mobilizing voters or soliciting votes 0. None (“In 1996, 49 percent of eligible voters cast their ballot.”) 1. Party (“The Republican Party needs your vote.”) 2. Candidates/Politician (“Gore urges young adults to vote.”) 3. Friends/Family (“A voter said her vote choice was influenced by her family.”) 4. Citizens/Voters (“Local voters gathered to register new voters.”) 5. Other groups (interest group, church, etc.) (“The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People has mobilized 4,000 voters in Florida.”) 6. Government (“The government has implemented several voter registration
reforms to increase the voter turnout.”) 7. Media (“Rock the vote campaign by MTV targets young voters.”) 8. Issue (“Abortion is getting much attention from conservative voters.”) 9. Mixed (“Both parties and their presidential hopefuls asked for their votes.”) 10. Unclear (“He said his vote was based on his instinct.”)
The next variable is similar to the mobilization agent, but does not include the
element of solicitation. Teixeira (1992) argues that while election law changes and
socioeconomic changes point to an increase in turnout, the decline in social and political
“connectedness” (p 23) is pulling the turnout down. During political campaign periods,
citizens interact with political parties, specific candidates, the media, and other groups.
The associations variable, then, will track those entities with which voters interact and
share space.
29
8. Associations: a reference to some social entity with which the voters interact 0. None (“Today, voters decide.”) 1. Party (“53 percent of Indiana’s voters favor Republican party ticket.”) 2. Candidate/Politicians (“4 percent of likely voters said they support Nader.”) 3. Family/Friends (“She said she went to vote with her friend.”) 4. Citizens/Voters (“The first time voter was sitting next to an elderly voter.”) 5. Other groups (“Voters talk about the election with their church members.”) 6. Government (“The voters need to contact local County Board of Registrars.”) 7. Media (“Many voters say they follow news on television every day.”) 8. Issue (“The federal budget deficit is not the central concern of the voters.”) 9. Opinion Poll (“Recent opinion polls show that voters are turning out.”) 10. Expert/Consultant (“An expert in voting machine said voters are skeptical.”) 11. Mixed (“Voters looked at news reports and talked to friends to understand
candidates’ policy issues.”) 12. Other/Unclear (“Anonymous phone calls were made to voters.”)
The next set of variables will examine the goals and rewards of electoral
participation. The goals variable investigates if voters have a broader collective good in
mind or if they are self-interested when participating in the electoral process. Some
economic voting literatures advanced by political scientists suggest that the voters seek
private goals (Chong, Citrin, & Conley, 2001), while others suggest that voters assess
national issues divorced from their personal situation and therefore seek a greater
collective goal than their immediate self-interest (Kinder & Kiewiet, 1979). Similar to the
goals variable, the rewards variable taps into what is promised to citizens as a reward of
their participation and the scope of the reward.
9. Goals: the voter’s (voting’s, vote’s) goals as implied by the article 0. No goal mentioned (“Voting: more people can, but fewer will.”) 1. A broad (collective) goal (“Vote for liberty.”) 2. A narrow (private) goal (“Vote to protect your social security.”) 3. Mixed (“When you vote, vote for the future of yourself and your country.”) 4. Unclear (“What are the goals of voters?”)
30
10. Rewards: the benefit of voting as implied by the article 0. None (“Almost a half of eligible voters showed up on election day.”) 1. Private tangible benefits (“Vote for me, I will promise you a tax cut.”) 2. Public tangible benefits (“Your vote will help create safer roads.”) 3. Private intangible benefits (“A voter said she felt good about fulfilling her
civic duty.”) 4. Public intangible benefits (“Vote so that democracy will prevail.”) 5. Mixed (“Your vote will bring prosperity to your family and to this country.”) 6. Unclear (“I don’t know what my vote can do.”)
The next set of variables trace citizens’ political agency. The first variable under
this category is role and investigates what kind of job is assigned to the voters. Specific
attention focuses on if voters are portrayed as a part of solution, or a part of problem.
Another variable examining agency is potency. This variable looks at whether the voters
are portrayed as active participants or passive observers of political affairs. Then, the
challenge variable asks if the voters are engaging in some active enterprise, inquiring as
to if the act is hard or easy, and if voters featured in newspapers face obstacles while
engaging in electoral activities. These variables are coded as follows:
11. Role: the social or political job being performed by the voter(s), the act of voting, and the vote(s).
0. None (“Mr. Ryan is a Democrat who plans to vote for Mr. Gore.”) 1. Part of the solution (“Your vote will get this country move forward again.”) 2. Part of the problem (“Democracy is in decline because an estimated 100
million eligible voters don’t vote on Election Day.”) 3. As conflicted (“The vote for the candidate is a double-edged sword.”) 4. Unclear (“My vote does not matter.”)
12. Potency: a stated or implied task being projected on to voters
0. None (“There are a growing number of Latino voters.”) 1. As actor (“In California, voters have requested 3.2 million absentee ballots.”) 2. As recipient (“The candidate alienated young voters.”) 3. Balanced (“Clinton made an effort to get voters to reflect on the progress he
asserts has occurred during his watch.”)
31
13. Challenge: a level of difficulty of engaging the act 0. Not mentioned (“As a citizen of this country, we have to vote.”) 1. Mentioned (“As initiatives and referenda proliferate, voters say that they need
to enroll in graduate school to understand all the issues.”)
The focus of election news has attracted much attention from political
communication scholars and has been criticized for its emphasis on political competition,
horse race and strategic concerns (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Fallows, 1997; Lawrence,
2000; Patterson, 1993). Researchers suggest that the media’s focus on game and
strategies as opposed to public policies and issues have created cynicism among the
American electorate. This variable looks at the frame of the news reports.
14. Frame: What is the frame of the article? 1. Issue (“Civil right is the only major issue average voter is concerned about.”) 2. Game (strategy, horserace) (“In a three-way race including Nader, Bush and
Kerry have 45 percent each among voters.”) 3. Mixed (“Candidates compete for the voters’ support on tax reform.”) 4. Identity/Other/N/A. (“Experts suggest that voter apathy is growing especially
among young adults.”)
Another concern is the rhetorical use of time in describing voters. Is electoral
participation talked about as a past, present, or future activity? Or, when electoral
participation is talked about in positive or negative ways, are journalists referring to the
past, present, or future activity? This variable will help to interpret other variables by
adding a temporal aspect to them.
15. Time: the voter’s moment in history as implied by the article 1. Past (“Many voters were frustrated by what happened in the last election.”) 2. Present (“Voters are concerned about our foreign policy in the Middle East.”) 3. Future (“Democratic voters will be working hard for the next election.”) 4. Across time (“Today, voters had a chance to reflect on these candidates’ votes
they cast four years ago.”)
32
Next, the behavior variable tracks what, exactly, voters do. Rational choice
theorists argue that voters think rationally when engaging in the electoral process,
therefore, conceptualizing voters as a thinking body (Downs, 1957; Fiorina, 1981; Key,
1966; Nie, Verba, & Petrocik, 1976; Popkin, 1991). Other scholars claim that voters
engage in the electoral process psychologically. Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen (2000)
suggest that emotions such as anxiety drive voters to certain vote choices. In this case,
voters are conceptualized as a feeling body. The behavior variable investigates how
American voters are conceptualized in news coverage.
16. Behavior (based on verb): how does the article conceptualize the voter as measured by the voter-linked verb?
0. None (“The survey of 1,000 voters was conducted last month.”) 1. Thinking (rational) body (“Voters questioned the candidate’s qualification.”) 2. Feeling (emotional) body (“Voters are frustrated with the current situation.”) 3. Acting body (“Voters engage in local debates.”) 4. Mixed (“Voters expressed resentment toward the candidate, but they said they
had to pick a lesser evil.”)
Finally, the qualities of the voters and electoral participation will be measured.
While the behavior variable is depends on verbs, this variable is based on adjectival
phrases (Hart, Smith-Howell, & Llewellyn, 1991). This variable assesses implicit and
explicit traits attached to voters and their electoral participation in newspaper articles.
33
17. Quality (based on adjectival phrases): qualities of the voters, vote(s), and voting mentioned or implied by the article
0. None (“Voters cast their ballots.”) 1. Undecided (“Many undecided voters watched the debate.”) 2. Partisan (“Republican voters are better mobilized than Democratic voters.”) 3. Independent (“This election hinges on independent voters.”) 4. Demographic (“Gore made a special appeal to women voters.”) 5. Potential (registered, likely) (“Candidates wooed likely voters.”) 6. Affect (positive or negative) (“Apathetic voters have been a fixture in
American politics.”) 7. Intellectual (positive or negative) (“They are sophisticated voters.”) 8. Numbers (“Gore needs about 5,000 voters.”) 9. Candidate specific (“Perot voters rushing to the polls.”) 10. Mixed (“Young voters are considered apathetic, but they are quite
knowledgeable about issues like environment and education.”) 11. Other (“The polling place was packed with new voters.”)
To sum, an overall tone of the coverage was measured by context; electoral
philosophy was explored by assumption; political setting was investigated by
association, frame, time and challenge; political incentive was explored by mobilization
agent, goals, and rewards; and political agency was examined by potency and role as
well as behavior and quality that add richer understandings of what exactly voters do.
Data Analysis. In my analysis, I will use both quantitative and qualitative
evidence. Quantitative data will offer a big picture of the portrayals of electoral
participation by providing trends and patterns over fifty years as well as the news media’s
influence on citizens’ political socialization processes. Qualitative texts will provide
examples of these findings showing attributes allocated to these terms. Both data will
help better understand how Americans are socialized to think about their electoral
participation through news media.
34
Experiments
While content analysis has high external validity, its limitation lies in internal
validity: it alone cannot provide a basis for the effects of content on an audience
(Wimmer & Dominick, 1994). On the other hand, experiments have a strong internal
validity as well-controlled experiments can illustrate clear causal relationships.
Therefore, in order to investigate the effects of the portrayals of electoral participation in
American newspapers (i.e., attribute agenda-setting effects), a set of experiments were
conducted.
Inspired by patterns in the content analysis, two experiments were conducted to
examine how the attributes attached to voters in newspapers influence citizens’ political
beliefs and attitudes: the first with a nationally representative sample of adults, the second
specifically, with young voters. In these experiments, participants read a manipulated
newspaper article which contained a paragraph featuring the attributes of voters found in
the content analysis and then were asked to complete a number of survey items taping
into citizens’ intention to vote, sense of civic duty, political efficacy, perception of
meaningfulness of elections, information seeking desires, and trust in news media. Two
experiments were identical in design except for the differences in samples. More detailed
descriptions of these experiments are discussed in Chapters Five and Six, respectively.
CONCLUSION This chapter described the methods employed in this dissertation. Drawing on
literatures on voting and following the tradition of keyword researchers and attribute
35
agenda-setting scholars, an extensive coding scheme was devised to explore the meanings
attached to electoral participation. In order to examine the effects of newspaper portrayals
of electoral participation, two experiments were conducted.
Although the study does not provide answers to everything that needs to be
known about the news media and citizens’ electoral participation, by combining two
traditions and methods discussed here, I hope to shed light on how American newspapers
have portrayed voting, voters and the vote over time and circumstances as well as the
implications of such portrayals. The curious and troubling coexistence of America’s pride
as a model of democracy and her electoral realities demand deeper exploration. This
project hopes to take a first step in learning more on this topic.
36
Chapter 3. Portrayals of American Electoral Participation (1948-2004)
This chapter presents the findings from a comprehensive content analysis and
discusses (1) how often the key terms pertaining to electoral participation—vote(s),
voter(s), voting, electorate(s) and election(s)—have appeared in American newspapers
over the past sixty years and (2) what kind of attributes have been most commonly
attached to voters and voting in American newspapers from 1948 to 2004. It is guided by
the following fundamental research questions:
RQ 1: How often have the key terms pertaining to electoral participation appeared
in print news between 1948 and 2004?
RQ 2: What are most commonly featured attributes of these electoral key terms?
Descriptive statistics were conducted on the 37,491 instances of key terms located
in the Campaign Mapping Project and qualitative analyses were conducted on a random
stratified sample of 2,138 of these terms. After these analyses, five broad themes emerged
in the data. These themes reveal that in news coverage between 1948 and 2004:
(1) Voters are increasingly mentioned over time;
(2) Voters and their electoral participation are not featured positively;
(3) Voters are cast in the shadow of elites;
(4) Voters are rarely reminded of democratic responsibilities; and
(5) Voters are not connected to the past or each other.
37
This chapter describes these patterns, noting how even though voters are increasingly part
of news coverage, their roles in the democratic system are rarely embellished in news
coverage.
VOTERS ARE INCREASINGLY MENTIONED IN NEWS COVERAGE
A first step was to examine how often the key terms pertaining to electoral
participation have been featured in American newspapers between 1948 and 2004. Using
a Keyword-in-Context program, all instances of five key terms vote, voter, voting,
election and electorate (and their derivatives) in newspapers stored in the Campaign
Mapping Project dataset were identified (N = 37,491). Then, in order to measure the
frequencies of these terms per year, “word density” ratios were calculated by dividing the
number of instances of a specific keyword per year by the total number of words
appeared in newspapers per year and multiplying this figure by 100.6
Results reveal three notable patterns. First, while voter turnout has declined over
time, American newspapers have continually used the terms pertaining to electoral
participation in their coverage. Second, despite the decline in voter turnout, the number of
references to voters in newspapers has increased over time. Third, the number of
references to the electoral key terms has increased exponentially in 2004.
First, even though voter turnout in the United States has been on a gradual decline
from 1960 over the years (with slight reversals in 1992, 2000 and 2004, see Figure 3.1),
6 For example, the density ratio for the term voter in news coverage in 1948 was calculated as follows: total number of voter appeared in news coverage in 1948 / total number of words appeared in news coverage in 1948 x 100.
38
no such decline appears in references to the key terms pertaining to electoral participation
in American newspapers. As Figure 3.2 shows, while the use of the term vote has
fluctuated over time, the term has been used steadily over the years. The term vote
increased in its use during the Civil Rights era of the 1960s—nearing 150% increase in
its use in eight years between 1960 (ratio = 0.19) and 1968 (ratio = 0.28)—and remained
relatively constant after the Civil Rights era with an exception of spikes in the years 1980
and 2004. The same can be said about the term election. References to election show an
ebb and flow over time closely following the pattern in the term vote, except for the Civil
Rights era. Unlike vote, the term election did not gain much prominence in the news
during the 1960s. Considering the explicit agendas of the Civil Rights era (one of them
being the right to vote), it is reasonable to find the increase in the number of vote
references but not in the number of election references in newspapers. The terms voting
and electorate are the least likely to appear in the news compared to the other terms
studied here, but the rate of usage over the years has remained constant.
Second, despite the decline in voter turnout, the number of references to voters in
newspapers has steadily increased over time. As Figure 3.2 shows, voters were
mentioned rather sparingly in newspapers coverage of presidential elections between
1948-1968. In 1972, however, the term gained considerable prominence in the news, and
at that time, voter (the actor) became more salient than vote (the act) itself. After 1972,
the term maintained its prominence in the news, outnumbering other key terms linked to
electoral participation. Indeed, the number of voter references has increased almost 600%
39
from 1948 (word density = 0.07) to 2004 (0.41), and the voter has become the most
frequently used term among the other words examined here.
Figure 3.1. Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections in the United States, 1948-2004
45
50
55
60
65
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
Year
Percentage
Voter Turnout
Source: The U.S. Census.
Figure 3.2. Electoral Key Terms Appeared in Newspapers in the Campaign Mapping Project (CMP), 1948-2004
Note: Word Density = (Number of Keyword / Number of Total Words) x 100
40
One possible explanation for an increase in voter references since 1972 is the
expansion of the roles assigned to voters in the nomination process. After the McGovern-
Fraser Commission in 1968, the nomination process was opened to popular participation
for the first time, and voters began to occupy a larger role in selecting the party nominee.
These reforms made the input of the voters crucial in selecting the party candidate
resulting in “unequivocally the most democratic system this country has ever used to
nominate presidential candidates” (Cooper, 2001, p. 772). A second, possible,
explanation is that the 1972 presidential election was the first contest following the 26th
Amendment, granting 18-20 year olds the right to vote. Therefore, an increase in the
number of voter references might reflect the expansion of voting population.
The increased use of the term voters in news coverage since 1972 is a truly unique
phenomenon when compared to other related terms in the Campaign Mapping Project
dataset. Figure 3.3 illustrates that while voter references have increased over time,
references to more general masses, such as people and citizen(s), have remained constant
over the years. Notice how of these three words, the term citizen was least likely to
appear in the news while a more generic term people was used more often than the term
voter prior to 1972. Since 1972, however, the term voter became the most frequently used
word in election news coverage.
41
Figure 3.3. “Voters,” “People,” and “Citizens” Appeared in Newspapers in the CMP, 1948-2004
Note: Word Density = (Number of Keyword / Number of Total Words) x 100
Finally, the coverage of the 2004 election shows an exponential increase in the
number of references to electoral participation in the news. The number of references to
the voter, voting and election reached all time high in 2004, and that of the vote reached
second highest level in 2004. Although I can only speculate why the rate of references
increased significantly in 2004, it may be the case that the controversial election of 2000
triggered the change in attention to voters and voting in the news. In the 2000 presidential
election, the butterfly ballot in Florida created much confusion among voters, and several
weeks of legal battles over vote counts created controversy over the election result and
the electoral process itself. The increased references to electoral key words in election
news coverage may reflect an increased attention to voting processes after the 2000
election. (Note: The qualitative nature of the data from 2004 will be discussed in Chapter
Four).
42
In short, quantitative data indicate that the electoral key terms have been used
constantly in American newspapers, the number of references to voters has steadily
increased over time, and the usage of the key terms reached a record high in 2004. The
rest of the chapter discusses the dominant qualitative patterns that emerged from the
content analysis.
VOTERS ARE NOT FEATURED POSITIVELY
How have the terms central to the democratic process been described in the news
qualitatively? A first qualitative pattern reveals that voters and their electoral
participation are not overtly praised. The context variable, the one which measures the
tone of the coverage, suggests that the newspapers report electoral participation in a
mostly neutral tone, 85.1% (Table 3.1). The prevalence of the neutral tone is not
surprising considering the key words linked to electoral participation were often placed in
an identity category (e.g., “Texas has 32 electoral votes,” “30% of electorate in Illinois
are still making up their minds,” “Nixon voters cast their ballots,” etc).
As Table 3.1 displays, voters and their electoral participation were mentioned in a
positive tone only 1.2% of the time in news coverage. Although voters and electoral
participation are generally regarded as one of the most important and fundamental
elements of democratic society among the public, studies on attribute agenda-setting
suggest that when issues or groups are not discussed in a positive manner, the readers are
less likely to perceive them in a positive way (Hester & Gibson, 2003; McCombs et al.,
43
2000). Here, the lack of positive tone in news coverage of voting and voters may pose a
concern regarding the political socialization of the news audience.7
Table 3.1
Electoral Key Terms by Context Variable
_______________________________________________________________________ Key terms Positive Negative Neutral _______________________________________________________________________ Vote(s) 0.2% 8.7% 91.1% Voter(s) 1.6 14.0 84.4 Voting 2.9 21.1 76.0 Election(s) 0.4 8.7 90.9 Electorate(s) 0.9 16.6 82.5 _______________________________________________________________________ Overall 1.2 13.7 85.1 _______________________________________________________________________
Furthermore, the context variable indicates that voters and their electoral
participation were far more likely to be cast in negative light than positive one. Table 3.1
also illustrates that the negative tone outnumbered positive tone by more than eleven to
one (13.7% vs. 1.2%). One of the ways in which voters were cast in negative light is
7 It is important to note that the news coverage of electoral keywords in 1992 and 2004 (two years that showed a spike in voter turnout) contained the highest level of “positive” context compared to other years examined here (1992 = 3.3%, 2004 = 3.3%). While these instances are modest in numbers, it is noteworthy that these two years that had higher voter turnout contained the highest level of positive coverage among all years.
44
directly attaching negative attributes to voters. For instance, negative attributes (e.g.,
apathetic, cynical, disillusioned, pessimistic, etc.) were far more likely to be attached to
voters and electorates than positive ones (e.g. interested, thoughtful, open-minded,
informed, etc).
Here are a few textual examples where voters were described in a negative tone.
Notice how voters are encouraged to consider negative traits of the electorate and
candidates instead of positive ones:
The candidate told a story about a young supporter who warned him that he will
be disappointed by the electorate, that Americans are too cynical to accept his
moral message (Washington Post, November 7, 1972, p. A1).
Democratic presidential candidate Walter F. Mondale accused President Reagan
of trying to exploit the supposed selfishness and greed of young voters (Los
Angeles Times, September 26, 1984, p. A18).
The examination of verbs linked to voters and the electorate adds to this pattern.
The data show that when voters and electorates are featured as actors or recipients of a
certain act (examined by potency variable), they were more likely to be associated with
negative verbs (e.g., alienated, deflected, disenfranchised, destroyed, disturbed, exploited,
frightened, intimidated, misled, puzzled, set the clock back, troubled, etc.) than positive
ones (19.9% vs. 1.8%).8
8 The data are drawn from the cross-tabulation of context and potency and qualitative textual analysis of verbs linked to the terms voter(s) and electorate(s).
45
The act of electoral participation is also connected to negativity (variable:
context). The following excerpts illustrate how the act of electoral participation is tied to
negativity such as losing Social Security, weakness, despair and disrespect:
The Vice President charged that Kennedy has been advising voters: “Don’t vote
for Mr. Nixon, because if you do, you’re going to lose your Social
Security”(Washington Post, November 2, 1960, p. A1).
Mr. Bush stressed the leadership theme, saying the voters faced a watershed
choice of following Mr. Reagan or going “back to weakness, despair and
disrespect” (New York Times, October 12, 1984, p. A1).
Although it is rare for journalists to feature negative attributes of voters and electoral
participation in their own words, by selecting certain parts of candidates’ campaign
rhetoric (that are often negative), they cast a hallmark of democracy in negative light.
Lance Bennett (1988) suggests, “reporters and editors search for events with dramatic
properties and then emphasize those properties in their reporting” so that the content of
the news is more dramatized than “any natural preeminence they may have in the
political scheme of things” (p. 35). Here, it appears that journalists’ tendency to seek
drama in news results in an emphasis on negativity in candidates’ campaign rhetoric.
Although candidates do make positive promise for the better future and cast voters in
more positive light in their candidate-centered campaign rhetoric (e.g., “I hope millions
of you will make history by voting for your future, voting for opportunity, voting for
leadership that trusts in you and the power of your dreams” from The Atlanta
Constitution, 1984, October 28, p. A19), these positive messages typically do not make it
46
in print. Instead, their attempts to warn voters against their opponents are more likely to
be covered.
In short, these data show that voters have been more likely to be reminded of
negative attributes associated with themselves and their vote rather than a positive
outlook of their political engagement in the news over the years.
VOTERS ARE CAST IN THE SHADOW OF ELITES
A second qualitative pattern shows that voters have been sidelined in news
coverage in both subtle and obvious ways. The associations variable which assessed the
entities with which the terms—vote, voter, voting, election and electorate—interact
indicates that newspapers cast voters to the side in the democratic process by linking
electoral process to the candidates and politicians rather than citizens or issues. Figure 3.4
shows that, overall, the words in this study were most likely to be associated with
“candidates or politicians” (75.2%) followed by “party” (27.4%), “citizens or voters”
(23.1%), “opinion polls” (16.9%), “issue” (16.2%), “expert/consultants” (6.7%), “mass
media” (4.1%), “other group” (3.9%) and “government” (2.6%).
47
Figure 3.4. Electoral Key Terms by Associations Variable
_______________________________________________________________________ All Key Terms (n = 2138) Vote & Voting (n = 900)
Voter & Electorate (n = 788) Election (n = 450)
_______________________________________________________________________
First, take the term election. This word was associated with “candidates or
politicians” 83.1% of the time while “citizens or voters” were linked to the term only
16.7% of the time. Consider some of the textual examples from Christian Science
Monitor in 1968 and The New York Times in 1992, both of which emphasize how
elections are about candidates, not voters.
Nixon people now are theorizing that Mr. Wallace would turn to their candidate
and give him the election. The further thought advanced aboard this plane is that
48
Mr. Wallace would be able then to take considerable satisfaction in saying that he
had decided the presidency (Christian Science Monitor, September 14, 1968, p.
A1).
It is a stage of the election where the risks and the rewards are great for a
challenger like Mr. Clinton (New York Times, September 14, 1992, p. A1).
In the first excerpt, news coverage completely dismisses the role played by the voters in
the democratic process by casting a candidate, not the voters, as the agent who “gives”
and decides the highest office holder in the United States. In the second excerpt, the
“risks and rewards” of an election were discussed in terms of a candidate (Clinton or his
opponent) rather than the voters. As illustrated in these examples, the coverage of the
election centered around candidates leaving out voters, who are, in theory, at the center of
the democratic process. Indeed, the term election was directly coupled with a specific
candidate (e.g., “Truman’s election,” “Bush’s re-election”) 12.4% of the time.
Next, the act of electoral participation, vote and voting, and the actors, voters and
electorates, were also linked to “candidates or politicians” most of the time, 75% and
71%, respectively. As in the case of election, these terms were directly linked to
candidates (e.g., “vote for Ike,” “voting for Gore”), and were often cast as subordinate to
candidates (e.g., “The Nixon voters who chose Walker,” “Hispanic voters for the Bush
ticket”). It was far less common to see the voters and the electoral process connected to
ideas, groups or government outside of an association to a specific candidate. As
illustrated, there is a tendency to encourage newspaper readers to believe that the act of
49
voting and the process of elections are most closely tied to candidates (at the expense of
issues, government or other concerns) and voters are sidelined in our concept of the
democratic process.
The candidate-centered coverage in the news during political campaign periods is
not a surprise to the scholars in the field of political communication. Bennett (1988), for
instance, contends that news media tend to personalize the coverage giving “preference
to the individual actors and human interest angles in events while downplaying
institutional and political considerations that establish the social contexts of those events”
(p. 26). While it may not be unexpected to see this candidate-centered coverage in the
news, it is still problematic that the key terms pertaining to democratic participation—
vote, voter, voting, election, and electorate—are all tucked under the personalization of
elite candidates rather than developed in discussions of citizens, issues or government.
When readers encounter this type of coverage, they may be prompted to think of
elections as an activity for politicians rather than citizens, which may lead to considering
themselves as an outsider to the democratic process. Furthermore, by downplaying
institutional context and real policy issues at hand, it makes it harder for citizens to grasp
how the political system really works and what is at stake for them (Bennett, 1988).
Kernell’s (1997) study on candidate-centered politics points to the potential
danger of this type of coverage as well. According to Kernell (1997), when citizens
develop relationships with individual leaders rather than institutions or political
processes, the political system turns into a volatile marketplace “whose currency of
exchange increasingly is public opinion” (p. 139) and produce more “volatile policy
50
outcomes” (p. 223). Moreover, when individual leaders are cast as “the fount from which
the answers to the nation’s problems flow” (p. 45), public expectations of politicians
become unrealistically high. When these unrealistic expectations are not met, it could
lead to cynicism among the public. That is, when journalists associate elections and
electoral participation predominantly with candidates and politicians, it may contribute to
volatility and cynicism.
To sum, voters who are at the center of the democratic process, theoretically at
least, have been put to the side in electoral news coverage, and the electoral process has
been cast as revolving around individual candidates over the years.
VOTERS ARE RARELY REMINDED OF DEMOCRATIC RESPONSIBILITIES A third qualitative pattern reveals that voters are often featured in horse race
coverage, and their electoral participation is reduced to a choice between elites rather
than a democratic duty or a right. The frame and assumptions variables uncover these
types of coverage.
The variable frame, which examines whether the terms vote, voter, voting,
election and electorate appeared in an “issue” or “game” frame, shows that all keywords
pertaining to electoral participation were more likely to appear in a game frame (39.0%)
than an issue frame (8.2%, see Table 3.2). When it comes to the term vote, the term was
used in the context of a game 57.3% of the time whereas it appeared in an issue frame
only 5.1% of the time. Similarly, the term election was used in a game frame nearly a half
of the time, 47.3%, while it was used in an issue frame only 6% of the time.
51
Table 3.2
Electoral Key Terms by Frame Variable
_______________________________________________________________________ Key terms Game Issue Mixed Identity/Other _______________________________________________________________________ Vote(s) 57.3% 5.1% 3.1% 34.4% Voter(s) 34.9 7.3 8.2 49.6 Voting 26.2 12.9 6.0 54.9 Election(s) 47.3 6.0 4.4 42.2 Electorate(s) 25.7 10.4 5.9 58.0 _______________________________________________________________________ Overall 39.0 8.2 5.5 47.3 _______________________________________________________________________
The following excerpts illustrate how electoral key terms were featured in the
game frame coverage in newspapers between 1948 and 2004:
Mr. Nixon’s lead among registered voters now stands at 61% to 33%, with 1% for
other candidates and 5% undecided, as reported Sunday. The previous survey
showed Mr. Nixon leading 64% to 30%, with 6% undecided or voting for other
candidates (Los Angeles Times, October 6, 1972, p. A20)
Bush is also benefiting from two decades of Republican efforts to define the
electorate and plot strategies to win over voter blocs. A key aspect of Bush’s
game plan is to peel away traditional Democratic constituencies, with carefully
52
targeted mailings and campaign symbols, all based on experience (The
Washington Post, October 4, 1988, p. A1).
Ohio’s 18 electoral votes have been safely in the Texas governor’s column for
some time…. Illinois and its 22 electoral votes should go to Gore, despite an
effort by Bush to steal the state (The Washington Post, November 5, 2000, p. A1).
In each instance above, the election is defined as a game of winning and losing between
elites. Meanwhile, voters and the vote are regarded as pawns of elites rather than
independent actors who are participating in democratic decision making process and
performing their democratic responsibilities.
The assumptions variable also shows a similar pattern. The assumptions variable,
which examines whether the vote is portrayed as a choice, a right or a duty, indicates that
these terms were predominantly featured as a choice (89.1%) rather than as a right (2.7%)
or a duty (0.6%) in news coverage between 1948 and 2004. That is, in the moments
where an assumption behind the vote was offered, the role of the voter is one who is
linked to candidates (not causes) and their action is narrowed to a choice between these
candidates (rather than a grander act involving democratic responsibilities).
Patterson (1993) argues that this type of coverage makes voters passive spectators
in the democratic process. Patterson (1993) states, “when voters encounter game-centered
stories, they behave more like spectators than participants in the election, responding, if
at all, to the status of the race, not to what the candidates represent” (p. 89). In his
analysis of election stories on the front page of the New York Times, Patterson found that
53
the game schema outnumbered the policy schema consistently and increasingly since the
mid-1960s, reaching over 80% after the mid-1970s. While my data has a specific focus
on key terms of electoral participation and has yielded fewer “game” frame and more
“identity” frame statements than what Patterson found in his study of overall election
stories,9 the serious implications of this type of reporting remain the same. By both subtly
and explicitly putting the voters to the side, the newspapers prime the readers to act as
spectators in political process.
Cappella and Jamieson (1997) point to another possible implication of this type of
coverage. They argue that strategic and conflict coverage often found in game framing is
detrimental to people’s political understanding. Cappella and Jamieson (1997) write,
Strategy and conflict coverage activate the judgment operator that tallies evidence
about the self-interested nature of the political process and its players. Those
consuming a lot of news that is structured this way are as a result more cynical.
But it is not necessary to consume a lot of strategic news to see its effects on how
the actions of politicians are interpreted (p. 169).
Thus, by portraying electoral activities as a game, newspapers discount democratic
responsibilities involved in the electoral process and create a passive and cynical
citizenry. The results from the variables time and quality discussed in the following
section add to such concern.
9 This is partly because the term voting was often used as an adjective. Initially, I envisioned that the term voting would capture the action of casting a ballot. After coding for grammar, however, I found that this term was more likely to be used as an adjective (44.4%) than as a verb (37.3%). When the term was used as an adjective, the most frequently used phrase was “voting record” (18.5%) followed by “voting booth”
54
VOTERS ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE PAST OR EACH OTHER A fourth qualitative pattern shows that voters are not featured as a reflective or
collective body. Indeed, the time and quality variables illuminate that voters are not
connected to the past or to each other.
The time variable traces whether voters and their electoral participation were
placed in the “past,” “present,” “future” or “across time.” As Table 3.3 shows, the key
terms examined here were mostly placed in the “present” (86.7%). In terms of voters and
electorate, they were placed in the “present” over 90% of the time (91.8% and 94.1%,
respectively). While there is a general tendency in the newspapers to focus on the present
(Barnhurst & Mutz, 1997), the emphasis on the present is quite strong in my data. This is
because the coverage of elections and electoral participation has been centered around
specific candidates and placed in a game frame rather than an issue frame (as discussed
earlier), and the focus of the coverage became who is winning or losing now rather than
reflection to the past or direction to the future.
(9.5%), “voting age” (8.5%), “voting bloc” (6.0%), “voting rights” (6.0%), “voting pattern” (5.5%), “voting machine” (4.5%) and “voting group” (3.0%), and these words tended to appear in an identity condition.
55
Table 3.3
Electoral Key Terms by Time Variable
_______________________________________________________________________ Key terms Past Present Future Across Time _______________________________________________________________________ Vote(s) 8.9% 84.4% 0.0% 6.7% Voter(s) 2.9 91.8 0.0 5.3 Voting 3.8 82.9 0.2 13.1 Election(s) 8.7 82.0 0.4 8.9 Electorate(s) 0.9 94.1 0.6 4.4 _______________________________________________________________________ Overall 5.2 86.7 0.2 7.9 _______________________________________________________________________
Iyengar’s (1991) study on thematic versus episodic framing points to a potential
implication of these presentistic types of news coverage. Iyengar suggests that while
thematic news coverage (which emphasizes broader contexts surrounding issues or
events) tends to promote a shared sense of responsibility and collective action, episodic
coverage (which focuses on specific instances or individuals) might deter the possibility
of imagining a shared responsibility. While Iyengar’s study focuses on social problems
rather than political campaigns and electoral participation, his insights are pertinent here.
By focusing on the present and placing individual candidates at the center of coverage
rather than discussing broader historical contexts surrounding issues and electoral
56
participation, the newspapers discourage readers to see their place and responsibilities
beyond what is offered in the coverage.
The variable quality looks at characteristics attached to electoral participation.
The data here suggest that voters are not only fragmentized in time, but also in space. As
illustrated in Figure 3.5, voters and their electoral participation were most likely to be
treated as “numbers” (13.8%) followed by “demographics” (13.1%), “candidate specific”
(5.7%), “potential” (3.6%), “partisan” (2.2%), “undecided” (1.2%), “affect” (1.2%),
“independent” (0.9%) and “intellectual” (0.7%). Among all key terms examined here, the
vote was used most often as “numbers” (29.3% of the time—e.g., “Carter is behind by 45
votes”) followed by “demographics” (19.3%—e.g. “Jewish vote”). The voters were most
likely to be given an attribute of “demographics” (24.7%) followed by “numbers”
(16.9%) while electorate was described as “numbers” (26%) most frequently followed by
“demographics” (16.6%)
57
Figure 3.5. Electoral Key Terms by Quality Variable10
_______________________________________________________________________ All Keywords (n = 2138) Vote (n = 450)
Voter (n = 450) Electorate (n = 338)
_______________________________________________________________________
The predominance of voters as “numbers” and “demographics” (as opposed to
emotional or intellectual beings) in news coverage is closely linked to the prevalence of
game framing discussed in the previous section. When journalists cover elections as a
10 The percentages of the quality variable are significantly lower for all keywords combined compared to the terms vote, voter, and electorate because the terms voting and election did not contain much adjectival phrases. As discussed in footnote 3, the term voting was often used as an adjective itself, therefore, it did not contain other adjectives. The term election was rarely featured with adjectives because of the nature of the word. When it is discussed with adjectives, however, it was mostly categorized as “candidate specific,” 12.4% (e.g., “Nixon’s election,” “Bush’s re-election,” etc). Because of the modest number of instances, individual results for the term voting and election are not displayed here.
58
game, voters are often portrayed as targets of elites, transforming voters into mere
“numbers” and “demographics.”11
Consider the following excerpt from The Chicago Tribune (1976, September 12).
Here, Illinois voters are divided into several demographic subgroups—Catholics,
Protestants, young, old, blacks—and are reduced to numbers in a game frame:
The Tribune Poll indicates some problems for Carter among major groups of
Illinois voters. For instance, Catholic voters - who cast 30 per cent of Illinois’
votes - were found currently to prefer Ford to Carter by 50 to 37 per cent.
Traditionally seen as Democratic voters, Catholics also prefer Republican
Thompson to Howlett, but less strongly than they choose Republican Ford over
Carter. Voters who consider themselves Protestants - 55 per cent of the electorate
- reflect the statewide preference in choosing Ford over Carter by 44 to 39 per
cent. Carter makes up the seeming difference by taking a strong share of Illinois
voters who identify their religious preferences in other terms.
When voters are divided by age, Carter emerges as a narrow favorite of those
under 30; he evenly splits voters 30 to 49 years old with Ford; and loses those 50
and older to Ford by 11 points. Thompson is the favorite of voters in each of the
age groups - leading Howlett by 13 points among those under 30, by 31 points
among 30-to-49-year-old voters, by 23 points among those 50 and older. The only
11 A cross-tabulation of “numbers” and the context variable indicates that numeric qualities of vote, voter, and electorate most frequently appeared in a game frame (69.5%) followed by an “identity” condition (25.4%), an issue frame (2.5%), and a mixed category (2.5%). A cross-tabulation of “demographics” and the context variable indicates that demographic categorization of vote, voter, and electorate also appeared
59
group of voters which disproportionately prefers Carter and Howlett over their
opponents are blacks. Carter wins an impressive 74 per cent of the blacks,
compared with Ford’s 10 per cent. Blacks favor Howlett to Thompson by 47 to 27
per cent (p. A1).
This type of coverage is complicated for the democratic process at least for two
reasons. First, as discussed earlier, by featuring voters in a game frame, newspapers turn
voters into passive spectators. Second, by presenting voters as divided pieces, this type of
coverage makes it hard for the readers to imagine a collective body of voters who strive
for a collective goal. As Figure 3.6 displays, voters and their vote were sliced and diced
into various subcategories such as gender (e.g., women voters), age (e.g., young voters,
voters between 30 to 49 years old, older voters, etc), race/ethnicity (e.g., African
American voters), religion (e.g., Catholic voters, anti-Catholic voters, Evangelical voters,
Protestant voters, etc), region (e.g., Chicago voters, suburban voters, rural area voters,
etc), and occupation/income (e.g., middle class blue-collar voters, voters with an annual
income of $12,500 to $35,000, etc).
most often in a game frame (56.5%) followed by an “identity” condition (33.7%), an issue frame (5.9%), and a mixed category (3.9%).
60
Figure 3.6. Subcategories in “Demographics” (in Quality Variable)
_______________________________________________________________________ Vote (n = 60) Voter & Electorate (n = 197)
_______________________________________________________________________
A closer look at the demographic data points to another concern. Specifically,
specific demographic groups that were targeted by elites were more likely to be featured
in electoral news coverage than those that were left out of the elites’ mobilization efforts.
Consider the “race/ethnicity” subcategory. When these data are examined for the term
“voter,” African-American voters were most frequently featured in electoral news
coverage over the years (36.8%) followed by Jewish voters (26.3%), White voters
(15.8%), and Hispanic voters (2.6%). The following excerpts show how certain groups
(Jewish voters in the examples) are featured as “crucial” and “influential” while leaving
out others:
Carter campaign strategists believe that Jewish voters, while relatively few in
number compared with the overall electorate, will be crucial to Mr. Carter’s
chances of carrying certain key states in November (New York Times, September
9, 1980, p. A1).
61
Nationally, the Jewish vote is small but influential, representing about 3 percent to
4 percent of the electorate and concentrated in a handful of states (Washington
Post, October 25, 2004, p. A1).
Practically, it may be the case that the certain groups of voters may be “crucial” or more
“influential” for candidates to win or lose their elections, and elites target their
mobilization efforts to specific kinds of people to maximize the likelihood of their
success rather than mobilizing all eligible voters (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993).
However, these types of coverage not only encourage fragmentation of voters (which
makes it hard to imagine collective goals), but also promote uneven representations of
voters in the news, and possibly, at the polls.
To sum, the data suggest that voters are fragmented in time (mostly situated in the
present) and space (divided into pieces), and such coverage may make it hard for readers
to envision a collective citizenry, and potentially harm the equal representation in the
news and at the ballot box.
CONCLUSION Based on the aggregate data drawn from the content analysis of newspaper
coverage of presidential elections between 1948 and 2004, this chapter examined how
often the key terms pertaining to electoral participation have appeared in American
newspapers over the past sixty years and what kind of attributes have been most
commonly attached to voters and voting in American newspapers from 1948 to 2004.
62
Quantitative results show that the terms pertaining to voters and their electoral
participation have been constantly featured in newspaper reporting, and the term voter
has been increasingly relied upon in newspaper reporting over the years. Qualitative
findings reveal, however, that voters and their electoral participation have been cast in
“thin” and not in detailed ways. Qualitative patterns suggest that over the past sixty years,
voters are not featured in a positive manner, are pushed aside in the democratic process
and are largely coupled with candidates rather than issues, government or other concerns,
are rarely reminded of their rights or duties involved in the democratic process, and are
featured as disconnected from the past and each other. I argue that these types of news
coverage make it hard for the citizens to imagine the power of their vote, its importance
in democratic governance and its connection to the legitimacy of the system.
While this chapter provides a broad overview of the portrayals of American
electoral politics, the next chapter looks underneath these aggregate patterns and
investigates trends over time in how voters and their electoral participation have been
featured in American newspapers between 1948 and 2004. Chapter Four illustrates how
the portrayals of voters and voting have changed over time, and discusses the potential
links to citizens’ political socialization processes.
63
Chapter 4. Portrayals of American Electoral Participation
(1948-1968, 1972-2000 and 2004)
Chapter Three reported aggregate data on how key electoral terms—vote, voter,
voting, electorate, and election—have been used in newspaper coverage over the past
sixty years. This chapter looks underneath these patterns and examines if and how news
coverage of these terms has changed over time. The following research questions are
examined in this chapter:
RQ 1: Have portrayals of electoral key terms changed over time?
RQ 2: If so, how?
Based on an extensive content analysis of electoral key terms (n = 2,138), results
show that the portrayals of voters and their electoral participation have shifted over the
past sixty years. Three distinct patterns emerged in analyses of the data. Specifically,
voters have been portrayed as:
(1) Closely aligned with political parties and empowered (1948 to 1968);
(2) Subsumed under public opinion polls as pawns of elites (1972 to 2000); and
(3) Faced with challenges in the electoral process (2004).
The following chapter illustrates these patterns and addresses potential
implications of these portrayals on citizens’ political socialization process. I argue that
the coverage between 1948 and 1968 may hold cues that could empower voters
particularly in a way that was not witnessed in the other years examined.
64
NEWS COVERAGE OF ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION: 1948–1968
Relative to the recent past, Americans were regarded to be politically active
between post-World War II and the height of the Civil Rights era. Studies report that
American people during this period expressed the highest levels of political efficacy since
World War II and more people were engaged in political activities than any other period
(American National Election Studies; Putnam, 2000; Schudson, 1998). Writing in the late
1950s, political scholar Robert Lane (1959) observed that “on the whole it seems clear
that more people, proportionate to the population (or even more men proportionate to the
male population), engage in more political activities today than has been true for at least
fifty years” (p. 93).
When the data in this project are examined over time, the findings suggest that
newspaper coverage of voters and their electoral participation between 1948-1968
reflects this robust political milieu. Results from the following variables—association,
mobilization agents, goals, rewards, role and behavior—show that voters were closely
aligned with political parties and featured as empowered participants in the democratic
process.
First, the association variable illustrates that voters and their electoral
participation were closely linked to political parties. Figure 4.1 shows that coverage
between 1948 and 1968 had the highest level of party references compared to later
periods (1948-1968 = 35.8%, 1972-2000 = 22.8%, 2004 = 20.7%—“party” association).
The figure also illustrates how the act (vote and voting), the actors (voter and electorate),
and the system of electoral participation (election) all follow a similar pattern.
65
Figure 4.1. “Party” Associations over Time
_______________________________________________________________________ All Key Terms (n = 2138) Vote & Voting (n = 900)
Voter & Electorate (n = 788) Election (n = 450)
______________________________________________________________________
The following textual examples illustrate how closely voters’ electoral decisions
were tied to political parties between 1948-1968. For instance, one column from The
Christian Science Monitor (1956, October 12) depicted party labels as the center of what
motivates voters.
Laboring men and their wives were in a majority among voters who indicated
they expected to return to the straight Democratic ticket.… Very few of the
voters sampled gave Mr. Stevenson credit for their re-conversion. Most were
66
returning because of what they felt the Democratic Party, rather than its
candidate, stood for. There was for instance, the janitor who said: “In my
opinion, Ike’s the bigger man, but I’m going to vote for the party of the
working man. I don’t think ‘Ike’ knows how much his Republican boys are
helping the rich and forgetting about us” (p. A1).
Notice how in this example voters are tied to “the straight Democratic ticket,” drawn to
“what the Democratic Party stood for,” voting for “the party of working man,” and
frustrated by the “Republican boys.”
The frequent use of party labels in the news reflects politicians’ reliance on these
labels in their campaign rhetoric as well. During these years, journalists quoted
candidates as claiming that political parties were important. Consider how the words of
candidates Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, quoted in these columns
as they are, underscore the important connections between voters and parties in the news.
First, take Harry Truman’s words as paraphrased in The Chicago Tribune (1948,
September 7):
Hinting at a campaign strategy of ignoring the two rebel segments of the old
Democratic party, Mr. Truman said the American electorate has a choice
between the two major political parties. He accused the Republican party of
wanting to weaken labor’s position (p. A1).
Then, John F. Kennedy words in The Chicago Tribune (1960, November 5):
Backstopped by a howling audience of 25,000 persons, Sen. John F. Kennedy
last night pleaded with a nationwide television audience not to forget party
67
labels in electing the next President on Tuesday… He said the voter’s decision
Tuesday should be not only between candidates, but between two parties.
Americans should choose between Nixon with the Republican party, and
Kennedy with the Democratic party, he said (p. A1).
And consider these statements by Richard Nixon quoted in The Los Angeles Times (1960,
September 25):
“Those who wrote the party platform in Los Angeles forfeited the right to ask
for millions of Democrats to vote for them in November,” Nixon said. “The
party of Galbraith, Schlesinger and Bowles is not the party of Jefferson,
Jackson and Wilson—and I don’t believe it is the party of Jackson, Miss.,
either” (p. A2).
As seen above, newspapers during this period were more likely to depict elections as a
choice between the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party and emphasize the
divisions between them compared to later periods. In doing so, the news reports during
this period portrayed electoral participation as something inseparable from political
parties.
Second, voters and their electoral participation were featured as highly mobilized
in news coverage between 1948-1968. As Figure 4.2 depicts, news coverage during this
period contained the highest level of mobilization agents (1948-1968 = 38.2%, 1972-
2000 = 29.2%, 2004 = 24.0%) indicating that citizens’ electoral participation was more
likely to be featured as solicited during this period compared to more recent periods.
68
Figure 4.2. Mobilization Variable over Time
_______________________________________________________________________ All Key Terms (n = 2138) Vote & Voting (n = 900)
Voter & Electorate (n = 788) Election (n = 450)
_______________________________________________________________________
The majority of these mobilization efforts were linked to elites (78.5% of the
mobilization efforts featured between 1948-1968 was made by candidates and political
parties) while other entities (such as citizens and interest groups) were also described as
mobilizing forces (21.5%). The following excerpts illustrate how voter participation was
solicited during this period.
69
The Los Angeles Times features mobilization efforts by a political campaign:
“We are going to directly to the voters asking for their volunteer participation…
This means that instead of having flashy headquarters on main streets, we will be
operating from store fronts, homes and offices, where the voters live” (October 8,
1968, p. A3).
The New York Times illustrates registration efforts by the unions:
The unions have undertaken the state registration drive, and $250,000 will
probably be spent in an effort to add 495,000 voters to the rolls (September 8,
1968, p. A81).
And, The Washington Post reports mobilization efforts by citizens:
Five Washington women will embark on a “midwest caravan-on-wheels” today,
to woo votes for the Democratic ticket of Johnson and Humphrey in four states”
(October 19, 1964, p. C2).
As seen, voters were featured as directly asked to participate in the electoral process,
wooed by other citizens for their participation, and money was spent on to register them.
These data are compelling because studies suggest that citizens tend to develop more
positive attitudes toward politics and participate more often when their involvement is
solicited (Leighley, 1995; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). Indeed, many scholars argue that
the decline of mobilization has contributed to the decline in voter turnout since the 1960s.
It is notable that newspapers discussed higher levels of solicitation in their coverage
during the height of political participation—years 1948-1968.
70
Next, along with the mobilization variable, results from the goals and rewards
variables indicate that news coverage during this period provided larger incentives for
citizens to engage in electoral participation. These variables tracked if goals and rewards
of electoral participation were mentioned in the news, and if so, whether they were broad
(collective) or narrow (private) in nature. As Figure 4.3 indicates, this time period
featured the highest levels of these measures attached to electoral participation (goals
featured: 1948-1968 = 22.6%, 1972-2000 = 16.1%, 2004 = 7.3%; rewards featured 1948-
1968 = 10.7%, 1972-2000 = 8.2%, 2004 = 2.0%).
Furthermore, the stakes of electoral participation featured in news coverage were
higher than that of more recent years. As Figure 4.3 shows, voters and their participation
were linked to “broad goals” and “collective reward” roughly twice as much as more
recent years (“broad goal,” 1948-1968 = 7.5%, 1972-2000 = 3.8%, 2004 = 2.7%; “public
reward,” 1948-1968 = 7.1%, 1972-2000 = 4.6%, 2004 = 1.3%).
Figure 4.3. Goals and Rewards Variables over Time
_______________________________________________________________________ Goals Rewards
_______________________________________________________________________
71
Consider how broad goals and public rewards are emphasized during this period in the
following excerpts from The Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post:
The President (Truman) expressed the hope that everyone that everyone who is
eligible to vote will do so tomorrow and “vote in the interest and welfare of the
free nations of the world, of the great country of which they are a part, and in their
own interest.” He said their interests are at stake because “it means prosperity at
home and peace in the world.” “If they vote their sentiments, as I think they are
going to vote, the country will be safe for another four years” (The Chicago
Tribune, November 4, 1952, p. A2).
“I think everybody ought to vote, and frankly, I think it enough that if a fellow felt
he had to vote against me I still would rather he voted than not vote at all...I still
believe that the neglect of the freedom of voting is the first step toward losing
your freedom” (The Washington Post, September 12, 1956, p. A1).
“I don’t think the average voter is particularly concerned about what I would call
a nitpicking type of issue. In other words, something of a local nature. The
average American I have run into is concerned about the type of government, the
type of country we are going to have. They are concerned about peace in the
world” (The Washington Post, October 13, 1964, p. A2).
By occasionally linking voting with grander principles and purposes such as “freedom”
and “peace in the world” as opposed to narrow goals and rewards such as a tax cut, news
coverage in this period offered the readers a larger purpose for engaging in the
72
democratic process. Consequently, voters were cast as more powerful agents who are
entrusted with such larger tasks as “making the country safe” and ensuring “peace in the
world” than in later years examined.
The role variable underscores this pattern. As discussed in the previous chapter,
newspapers rarely portray voters and their electoral engagement in a positive way, let
alone as “a part of solution.” While it is critical to acknowledge that the numbers here are
modest, the data show that during this period voters and their electoral participation were
more likely to be featured as a “part of the solution” compared to later periods (1948-
1968 = 2.9%, 1972-2000 = 0.7%, 2004 = 1.3%).
Finally, the behavior variable reveals that voters were most likely to be featured
“in action” during this period. While the potency variable, which measures whether
voters are portrayed as actors or recipients of certain action, reports that voters have been
featured as actors at a constant level over the past sixty years (1948-1968 = 34.7%, 1972-
2000 = 35.6%, 2004 = 35.0%—“actor”), the behavior variable reveals a subtle distinction
in how these actors have been presented in the news. Figure 4.3 illustrates that when
voters and electorates were featured as actors in news coverage, they were depicted as
acting body in this period more frequently than later periods (1948-1968 = 19.8%, 1972-
2000 = 14.2%, 2004 = 15.7%). For instance, they were featured as “setting the issue,”
“giving state offices, senate seats, congressional majorities,” “participating in elections,”
and of course, “casting a vote.”
73
Figure 4.4. Behavior Variable over Time12
As discussed above, the data presented thus far suggest that the coverage of
electoral participation during this period was more empowering compared to recent years.
While voters were featured less frequently (quantitatively) than later periods during this
time (see Chapter 3), when mentioned, their participation was solicited, they were
entrusted with broader purposes and influence, and they were depicted in action.
In short, voters were given more incentives to engage in the electoral process in
news reports and were featured as engaged in the democratic process. It is important to
keep in mind that news coverage of electoral campaigns during this period was not
necessarily an ideal form of reporting voters and their electoral participation (i.e., even
during this robust period, trends discussed in Chapter 3 were prevalent). Nevertheless, it
is worth noting that when voter turnout was at a relatively high level, the news reports of
electoral participation featured more empowered citizenry. It may well be that these
12 The data are based on the terms voter and electorate, n = 788.
74
empowered representations of voters simply reflect the efficacious public of this period.
One wonders though, if the representation of efficacious voters in the news could create,
as well as reflect, efficacious voters.
NEWS COVERAGE OF ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION: 1972–2000 After the vibrant Civil Rights era of the 1960s, the high level of political
engagement during the 1960s gradually subsided and voter turnout steadily declined (see
Figure 3.1). As addressed in Chapter One, voter turnout began to decline when citizens
were given more opportunities to participate in the electoral process than ever before.
That is, even though the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1964 opened the door for
African Americans to participate in electoral politics and the 26th amendment to the
United States Constitution in 1971 gave young adults (over the age of 18) the right to
vote for the first time in American history (Wattenberg, 2002), turnout has not increased
since the 1960s.
The decline in voter turnout also coincides with an increase in the importance of
the role played by the news media in electoral process (Patterson, 1993). While electoral
politics revolved around political parties in earlier days (Wattenberg, 2002), the primary
system gradually took the institutional importance away from the parties in the candidate-
selection process (Polsby, 1983). As a result, both voters and candidates began to look to
the news media for information and support replacing the role played by political parties
(Kernell, 1997; Schudson, 1998).
75
Interestingly, just as the role of the news media became essential in the electoral
process, portrayals of voters and their electoral participation took an unfortunate turn.
The variables mobilization, goals, rewards, and role indicate that news coverage of
voters and their electoral participation became “thinner” during this period, and
association and quality variables reveal that voters became subsumed under opinion polls
and increasingly cast as pawns of elites in electoral news coverage.
First, the empowered portrayals of voters in news coverage witnessed in 1948-
1968 began to dissipate during this period. As presented in the previous section, the level
of mobilization featured in the news dropped by 9 percentage points from 38.2% in 1948-
1968 to 29.2% in 1972-2000 (see Figure 4.2). Fewer direct incentives for electoral
participation were provided in news coverage (goals featured: 1948-1968 = 22.6%, 1972-
2000 = 16.1%; rewards featured 1948-1968 = 10.7%, 1972-2000 = 8.2%), and when they
were provided, the scope of them became narrower during this period (“broad goal,”
1948-1968 = 7.5%, 1972-2000 = 3.8%; “public reward,” 1948-1968 = 7.1%, 1972-2000
= 4.6%, see Figure 4.3). Moreover, the role of voters as “a part of solution” featured in
news coverage almost completely disappeared (1948-1968 = 2.9%, 1972-2000 = 0.7%).
Second, newspapers began to feature voters as subsumed under opinion polls. The
association variable indicates that while voters and their electoral participation were
closely tied to political parties in 1948-1968 (Figure 4.1), they became increasingly tied
to opinion polls during this period (Figure 4.5). The terms vote and voting were linked to
opinion polls more than twice as much as earlier period (1948-1968 = 6.4%, 1972-2000 =
16.7%, 2004 = 3.3%) and the rate quintupled for the term election during this period
76
(1948-1968 = 2.2%, 1972-2000 = 12.5%, 2004 = 0%). When it comes to the terms voters
and electorate, the rate of association doubled, and they were linked to opinion polls over
one third of the time (1948-1968 = 17.7%, 1972-2000 = 34.0%, 2004 = 26.7%).
Figure 4.5. “Opinion Poll” Associations over Time
_______________________________________________________________________ All Key Terms (n = 2138) Vote & Voting (n = 900)
Voter & Electorate (n = 788) Election (n = 450)
_______________________________________________________________________
An increase in opinion poll coverage mirrors what was happening in the field of
journalism during this period. The 1970s saw the rise of precision journalism—“the
application of social and behavioral science research methods to the practice of
77
journalism” (Meyer, 2002, p. 2)—and media polls proliferated in the 1980s (Meyer,
2002). Because opinion polls offer a number of characteristics that are newsworthy in
nature—timely, concrete, topical, reliable and considered objective (Crespi, 1980; Paletz
et al., 1980)—the press began to incorporate them profusely in their election coverage.
The rise of precision journalism during this period is also reflected in an increase
in references to experts in the news. Although the overall rate of references to experts in
electoral coverage are not as substantial as opinion polls or other entities (such as
candidates and political parties), the percentage of references to experts associated with
voters and their electoral participation in the news more than doubled since 1948-1968
(1948-1968 = 3.1%, 1972-2000 = 8.8%, 2004 = 9.3%).
While references to opinion polls and experts in electoral news coverage could be
beneficial to the democratic process (Meyer, 2002; Steele, 1995), the way journalists
incorporated them in electoral news coverage during this period did little to improve
citizens’ political understanding. A cross-tabulation of frame and association variables
reveals that when electoral key terms were linked to “opinion polls” between 1972-2000,
they were far more likely to be featured in a “game” frame (59.0%) than an “issue” frame
(6.6%), and experts were featured in “game” frame coverage seven times more than
“issue” frame coverage (34.0% vs. 4.7%). The following textual examples from The Los
Angeles Times and The New York Times illustrate how electoral key terms were featured
with opinion polls and experts in horserace coverage.
Mondale was close to Reagan in the polls only in Iowa, where a Des Moines
Register survey conducted over the four days immediately following the first
78
presidential debate on Oct. 7 showed Reagan favored by 46% of registered voters
and Mondale by 41%. In Ohio, which has 23 electoral votes, Reagan held a 17-
point lead over Mondale in a poll by the University of Akron for the Akron
Beacon Journal. (The Los Angeles Times, October 30, 1984, p. A1).
Mr. Wirthlin predicted, based on his polls, that Mr. Reagan would get 59 percent
of the national popular vote, plus or minus two points (The New York Times,
November 6, 1984, p. A1).
This coverage links opinion polls and experts strictly to who was winning (Ronald
Reagan) and losing (Walter Mondale) instead of public policy issues or other reasons to
support these candidates. As a result, it does little to contribute in helping citizens make
informed and meaningful electoral decisions.
The quality variable underscores this point. Figure 4.6 illustrates that voters and
the electorate were more likely to be cast as “numbers” and “demographics” in this
period than other periods (“number,” 1948-1968 = 13.7%, 1972-2000 = 25.2%, 2004 =
15.0%; “demographics,” 1948-1968 = 18.5%, 1972-2000 = 22.7%, 2004 = 20.0%). The
increase in opinion polls combined with game framing reduced the role of voters into
mere numbers and striped their roles as active participants in the democratic process.
79
Figure 4.6. “Numbers” and “Demographic” (in Quality Variable) over Time13
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
In short, while the roles of voters and the news media became ever more
important after 1968 and voters were featured more frequently than during the earlier
period (see Figure 3.2), voters during this period were not cast in a very meaningful way.
Compared to news coverage in 1948-1968, voters and their electoral participation were
less likely to be featured as mobilized, and their goals, rewards, and roles in the
democratic process diminished in the news coverage. Indeed, American voters were
increasingly linked to public opinion polls and featured as mere numbers, and ultimately,
pawns of elites. When the role of the news media became indispensable and its influence
became crucial in electoral process, the attributes of voters and their electoral
participation became thinner and the increased quantification of voters took the life out of
the empowered electorate featured in 1948-1968.
13 The data are based on the terms voter and electorate, n = 788. Variable: quality.
80
NEWS COVERAGE OF ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION: 2004 Following the complicated presidential election in 2000, the references to
electoral key terms skyrocketed in 2004 (Figure 3.2). This year featured unique trends
qualitatively and quantitatively. As such, it is addressed independent of the other time
periods, here.
On one hand, some of the data for 2004 follow a trend of thinning treatments over
time (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Specifically, the mobilization variable indicates that
voters and their electoral participation were least likely to be featured as solicited in the
news in 2004 (Figure 4.2). Additionally, the goals and rewards variables also reveal that
purposes and benefits of electoral participation became negligible in the news coverage
of the 2004 election (Figure 4.3).
On the other hand, a closer examination of the variables frame, association,
challenge, and assumptions reveals that electoral news coverage in 2004 departs from
earlier years. These variables indicate that electoral news coverage after the controversial
election of 2000 shifted from horserace coverage to news reports that examined electoral
procedures, and began to feature voters as facing challenges in exercising their basic right
to engage in the democratic process.
First, the frame variable reveals that the way journalists portrayed elections in
2004 shifted away from horserace coverage. The results shown in Figure 4.7 indicate that
the use of “game” framing in 2004 dropped from 40.5% in 1972-2000 to 28.7% in 2004,
reaching all time low since 1948 (1948-1968 = 38.6%, 1972-2000 = 40.5%, 2004 =
28.7%). While all electoral key terms show a decline in a “game” framing in 2004, those
81
pertaining to the act and the system of the electoral process show the most visible decline.
In terms of vote and voting, the rate of a “game” framing declined from 42.7% in 1972-
2000 to 31.7% in 2004. In terms of the system of electoral process (election), a “game”
frame dropped to less than a half of what was witnessed in 1972-2000 (50.0% vs. 23.3%).
Figure 4.7. Frame Variable over Time
_______________________________________________________________________ All Key Terms (n = 2138) Vote & Voting (n = 900)
Voter & Electorate (n = 788) Election (n = 450)
_______________________________________________________________________
The association variable points to a similar pattern. Figure 4.5 illustrates that the
spike in opinion poll references in electoral news coverage in 1972-2000 (22.8%)
82
dropped by 10 percentage points in 2004 (12%). When it comes to the act (vote and
voting) and the system of electoral participation (election), references to opinion polls
became minuscule in 2004 (vote and voting, 20004 = 3.3%; election, 2004 = 0%, see
Figure 4.5). Furthermore, these terms became more closely linked to “government” in
2004. While the act (vote and voting) and the system of electoral participation (election)
were linked to “government” only 2-3% of the time in 1948-2000, the rate quintupled in
2004 (vote and voting, 2004 = 11.7%; election, 2004 = 10.0%, see Figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8. “Government” Associations over Time
_______________________________________________________________________ All Key Terms (n = 2138) Vote & Voting (n = 900)
Voter & Electorate (n = 788) Election (n = 450)
_______________________________________________________________________
83
The challenge variable, which assesses obstacles engaging in electoral activities,
also illuminates how the nature of electoral news coverage changed in 2004 (Figure 4.9).
While newspapers rarely featured electoral participation as challenging in 1948-2000,
they began to present electoral participation in such a way in 2004 (1948-1968 = 3.9%,
1972-2000 = 1.8%, 2004 = 12%). The terms voters and the electorate were cast as facing
challenges in engaging in the electoral process in 2004 more often than any other periods
(1948-1968 = 5.6%, 1972-2000 = 1.3%, 2004 = 13.3%). The act of voting was featured
as a challenge to citizens (1948-1968 = 4.4%, 1972-2000 = 3.3%, 2004 = 10.0%), and the
term election was portrayed as challenged in the news (1948-1968 = 0.6%, 1972-2000 =
0%, 2004 = 13.3%) at this time, as well.
84
Figure 4.9. Challenge Variable over Time
_______________________________________________________________________ All Key Terms (n = 2138) Vote & Voting (n = 900)
Voter & Electorate (n = 788) Election (n = 450)
_______________________________________________________________________
The following excerpts show how voters and their electoral participation were
reported as being challenged in 2004. Whether it was a power outage, redistricting, a
hurricane or the miscounting of votes, voters were faced with challenges in engaging in
the democratic process.
The Atlanta Constitution (October 16, 2004) features instances of registration
problems:
85
Between 1.5 and 3 million Americans may not have been able to vote in 2000
because of registration problems, a U.S. Census survey estimated. The number of
voters turned away in Georgia in 2000 has never been determined. But Cox said
she knows of a situation in which some Atlanta University Center students were
denied their vote because a power outage had kept their names from being
properly entered into the computer database (p. D1).
The Los Angeles Times (October 19, 2004) reports problems with a provisional ballot:
In what activists have called a setback for low-income Floridians, the state
Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who cast a provisional ballot at the
wrong precinct here are not entitled to have their votes counted… Activists on
Monday said the ballot law unconstitutionally disenfranchised voters who did not
know their polling place. They argued that many people have new polling places
because of redistricting or might have been displaced by a hurricane (p. A14).
The Washington Post (October 16, 2004) touches on miscounting of votes:
After controversies about butterfly ballots and hanging chads in 2000, about three
in four Florida voters say they are very or fairly confident that the votes will be
counted accurately this time. But the quarter of the electorate that remains
skeptical has a dim view of what may happen on Election Day. Seven in 10
among those doubters believe that votes will be deliberately miscounted to help a
candidate, and by 9 to 1, they say any miscounting will favor Bush (p. A1).
As seen in these instances, in the wake of election 2000, journalists often cast voters as
facing challenges in executing their fundamental rights as citizens.
86
The assumptions variable contributes to this point. Figure 4.10 shows that
electoral participation was more likely to be cast as a “right” in 2004 than in any of the
other periods (1948-1968 = 3.3%, 1972-2000 = 1.8%, 2004 = 6.0%). While the data are
somewhat modest, this pattern is particularly visible in the terms voter, electorate, and
election. The voters and electorates were featured as having a basic right to engage in the
electoral process more often than any other periods (1948-1968 = 1.6%, 1972-2000 =
0.2%, 2004 = 6.7%), and participating in elections was featured as a right as citizens
(1948-1968 = 0.6%, 1972-2000 = 0%, 2004 = 6.7%). It is intriguing that the news
coverage of the most recent election in 2004 portrayed voters as facing challenges in
executing their basic rights as citizens in the democratic process more so than during the
Civil Rights era in the 1960s.
87
Figure 4.10. Voting as a “Right” (in Assumptions Variable) over Time
_______________________________________________________________________ All Key Terms (n = 2138) Vote & Voting (n = 900)
Voter & Electorate (n = 788) Election (n = 450)
_______________________________________________________________________
To sum, the news coverage of the 2004 election signaled a shift in how news
media portray voters and electoral participation. The horserace coverage gave way to
news reports that examined electoral procedures where voters’ basic rights were
challenged. Unlike the game oriented news coverage where dramatic tension is placed
between elites, this type of news coverage present a new form of drama in which
dramatic tension is placed between voters and the electoral process. While the departure
88
from horserace coverage is a welcoming trend, implications of this new type of news
coverage remain to be seen.
CONCLUSION
This chapter examined how the electoral key terms have been portrayed in
American newspapers over time. Three distinct patterns emerged from content analysis:
voters were featured as closely linked to political parties and empowered in 1948-1968;
voters were subsumed under opinion polls and increasingly featured as pawns of elites in
1972-2000; and voters were featured as faced with challenges in the electoral process in
2004.
In a sense, these patterns mirror the political milieu of each time period. When
political participation rates and efficacy were comparatively higher, voters were featured
as empowered in electoral news coverage. When participation and efficacy began to
decline, portrayals of voters and their electoral participation in news coverage became
diluted and less meaningful. Following the controversial election of 2000, voters were
featured as facing challenges participating in the electoral process.
These patterns may suggest that news coverage of voters and electoral
participation simply reflect the political moment of each time period. Yet, it is also
possible that the way the news media portray voters have socialized citizens into seeing
their roles as the same way that was advanced in the news. Indeed, the theory of attribute
agenda-setting supports this possibility. Accordingly, the coverage of voters between
1948 and 1968 may hold cues to influence citizens’ political attitudes and engagement.
89
The next two chapters will examine the effects of these news portrayals on citizens’
political beliefs and attitudes.
90
Chapter 5. Effects of Portrayals in the News: General Population
Chapter Four revealed that the ways in which print news media featured electoral
key terms have changed over time. Specifically, journalists were more likely to feature
voters as empowered agents in a democratic system in earlier periods (the 1950s and
1960s) compared to more recent periods in which voters were treated as pawns of elites
and public opinion polls (the 1970s to the present). Intriguingly, these patterns coincide
with empirical trends: higher political engagement in the 1950s-1960s and a decline since
the 1970s. Building on the findings in the previous chapter, this chapter investigates the
effects of news framing on citizens’ political attitudes. More specifically, this chapter
tests the effects of the empowered portrayal found in the 1950s and 1960s on citizens’
participatory intentions, political efficacy, information seeking, and trust in news media.
The ways in which news media cover political campaigns have attracted much
attention and criticism from scholars concerned with the role of news media in
democracy (Bennett, 2001; Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Fallows, 1996; Patterson, 1993).
Scholars suggest that horse race or strategic reporting has increasingly come to define
the national news media coverage of political campaigns, and it has exerted detrimental
effects on democracy and the electoral process. Patterson (1993) argues that news media
portray candidates as “deceptive, hypocritical, and manipulative” (p. 204) and by
reporting candidates and political campaigns this way, the news media have failed to
inform the public about the important issues in electoral process and, even worse,
contributed to general lack of faith in the political system. Cappella and Jamieson (1997)
91
similarly argue that by focusing on motives behind candidates’ moves and rhetoric rather
than policy issues, the strategic coverage has created cynicism among voters. The authors
test these claims empirically, and conclude that strategic coverage produces political
distrust and cynicism among citizens. Valentino, Beckmann, and Buhr (2001) also reveal
the negative effects of strategic coverage especially among nonpartisans and less
sophisticated voters who are most vulnerable to such coverage and most likely to be
demobilized and alienated by such coverage.
Studies examining the negative effects of news framing during election periods
are abundant and the evidence of negative effects is well documented. However, it is rare
to find studies that examine the potentially positive effects of news framing during
election campaign periods. If news media have talked voters out of political engagement
(by covering elections as a game and voters as pawns of elites), is it possible for news
media to bring them back in (by following the patterns in earlier times and featuring
voters as empowered agents in a democratic system)? And, what are the journalistic and
democratic implications of featuring voters in a more empowered manner? This chapter
takes these questions seriously.
While no one study could test these matters definitively, I explore the possibility
that how voters were depicted in an earlier era (the 1950s to 1960s) might encourage
citizens to participate in electoral politics and create more positive attitudes toward
politics and news media. At a time of declining political engagement, it is important to
analyze what is contributing to the disturbing trend. At the same time, we should ask
what we can do about it and how.
92
HYPOTHESES One of the most visible markers of democratic engagement is voter turnout rate.
National Election Studies (NES) data indicate that during the 1950s and the 1960s, (when
the voters were featured as empowered actors in print news coverage of the democratic
process), American citizens were voting at a higher rate than more recent years
(Wattenburg, 2002). While this pattern suggests a correlation between the news
portrayals of voters and voter turnout rate, there is no causal relationship examined
between these two phenomena. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is set to test the causal
relationship between the two. Based on the data on voter turnout and my content analysis,
I predict that when voters are featured as empowered agents in news media, citizens’
intentions to vote will increase.
H1: The empowered voter portrayal will increase intention to vote.
Next, a sense of civic duty has been studied widely as a predictor of electoral
participation. Riker and Ordeshook’s (1968) calculus of voting suggests that a sense of
civic duty is an essential component of citizens’ likelihood of voting. When people feel a
sense of responsibility and obligation, they are more likely to participate in electoral
activities. Other studies demonstrate this relationship as well (Almond & Verba, 1963;
Gerber & Green, 2000; Verba & Nie, 1972). Therefore, I predict that when the news
media feature voters as empowered agents in the democratic process, citizens’ sense of
civic duty will increase.
H2: The empowered voter portrayal will increase sense of civic duty.
93
Another important element pertaining to political engagement is citizens’ political
efficacy. Political efficacy is “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can
have, an impact upon the political process” (Campbell, Gurin, & MIller, 1954, p. 187).
Political efficacy has two components: internal and external efficacy (Converse, 1972;
Craig, 1979; Craig & Maggiotto, 1982). Internal efficacy represents “beliefs about the
impact a person may have on the political process as a result of their own skills and
confidence” that one can understand and influence political affairs, while external
efficacy represents “the impact a person believes they may have on the political process
as a consequence of institutions’ responsiveness” (Sullivan & Riedel, 2001, pp. 4353-4).
There is a large amount of literature that proposes a positive relationship between
citizens’ sense of political efficacy and electoral participation (Abramson & Aldrich,
1982; Almond & Verba, 1963; Campbell et al., 1960; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993;
Verba & Nie, 1972).
However, there are few distinct characteristics that separate internal and external
efficacy. Scholars suggest that while internal efficacy is associated with individual’s
characteristics such as socioeconomic background and life stage (Abramson, 1983),
external efficacy is less susceptible to changes in individual’s characteristics, but more to
the changes in the political environment (Sullivan & Riedel, 2001). Accordingly, while
people’s internal efficacy has remained relatively high since the 1960s, external efficacy
has declined steadily over the years (Sullivan & Riedel, 2001). Based on these patterns, I
predict that the empowered voter portrayal will increase citizens’ external efficacy while
not influencing the level of internal efficacy.
94
H3: The empowered voter portrayal will increase external political efficacy while
exerting no impact on the level of internal efficacy.
For citizens to engage in their electoral activities, they have to perceive that
elections are meaningful and that who gets elected to public office matters. Since the
1970s, however, the degree to which citizens feel connected to a political process has
declined among the public (Putnam, 2000). If the strategic coverage of political
campaigns contributed to general decline in meaning that citizens find in the electoral
process (Valentino et al., 2001), it could be hypothesized that citizens’ perceptions of the
meaningfulness of elections will increase when voters are featured as empowered agents
engaging in the meaningful process of electoral politics.
H4: The empowered voter portrayal will increase meaningfulness of elections.
A healthy democratic system also rests on the notion that citizens seek the
political information necessary to make informed decisions. During political campaign
periods, the news media provides enormous opportunities for citizens to learn about
issues and think about politics. Over the years, however, the strategic campaign coverage
and negativity in news reporting have turned citizens off, and political interest among the
public has declined. Meanwhile, a recent study shows that interests in political
information can be stimulated by a subtle shift in campaign discourse. Kam (2007)
demonstrates that when citizens are reminded of their civic duty in campaign discourse,
they are more likely to devote increased cognitive effort in thinking about politics and
seeking more information about politics in an open-minded way. By instilling in voters a
95
sense of agency in news coverage, I predict that the empowered voter portrayal will
stimulate information seeking desires among the public.
H5: The empowered voter portrayal will increase information-seeking desires.
Another disconcerting trend over the past several decades has been a drastic drop
in trust in news media among the public (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Moy & Pfau, 2001;
Tsfati & Peri, 2006). According to survey data, the percentage of people who express a
“great deal of confidence” in the press dropped from around 30 percent in early 1970s to
only 12 percent in 2000 (Cook, Gronke, & Rattliff, 2000). Scholars have linked declining
levels of trust in news media and other political institutions with the strategic frame in
news media (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Patterson, 1993). Based on the content analysis
of newspapers and public opinion polls over the past three decades, Kiousis (2002)
empirically shows that the trust in news media is negatively correlated with the amount of
cynical coverage of the president. That is, distrust against the press among the public may
be self-inflicted. By covering politics in a cynical and negative manner, the press not only
creates distrust against politicians, but also against itself among the public. At the same
time, it poses a promise that it might be possible for the press to regain trust from the
public by reforming the ways in which journalists cover political campaigns and voters.
Kiousis (2002) offers insight to this pattern by pointing to congruity theory. He
states that congruity theory suggests, “people strive to maintain equilibrium between
attitude objects and sources making assertions about those objects.” (p. 561). Based on
congruity theory, then, if news coverage of voters could create positive attitudes toward
electoral politics, citizens may try to maintain equilibrium between their positive attitude
96
toward electoral politics (attitude object) and the press (the source of the message) by
changing their attitude toward the press in a positive way. Therefore, I predict that when
the voters are featured as empowered agents in democratic system rather than as pawns of
elites in a game framing, citizens will be more likely to trust the news media.
H6: The empowered voter portrayal will increase trust in news media.
Finally, I consider the possibilities that the effects of these portrayals will vary
across individuals. Political and media scholars suggest that political knowledge and
political attachment moderate framing effects (Price & Zaller, 1993; Zaller, 1992). Some
argue that the politically sophisticated tend to be inoculated against attitude change
because of already established opinions (McGuire, 1964). However, the empirical results
of these moderators are inconsistent. For instance, Valentino et al. (2001) found that
those with low levels of political knowledge are more likely to be influenced by media
frames while Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley (1997) found the opposite result. Therefore,
given the less definitive nature of these findings, I will explore the moderating effects of
political knowledge and partisanship without making a priori theoretical predictions.
RQ 1: Do political knowledge and partisanship either enhance or diminish
the effects of the empowered voter portrayal?
METHODOLOGY To test these hypotheses, an on-line experiment, an increasingly common method
in communication research, was conducted. I used a post-test only between-subjects
97
experimental design with random assignment to one of two conditions: the empowered
voter condition and a control condition.
Procedure The experiments took place online two weeks before Super Tuesday (a 24 state
primary date on February 5, 2008). Each participant completed a questionnaire regarding
media habits and political engagement and then was randomly assigned to one of two
conditions: the empowered voter condition or control condition. In the empowered voter
condition, participants read a newspaper article containing a manipulation paragraph; in
the control condition, participants read the same article without a manipulation paragraph
(detailed in Materials section, below). After the participants read their article, they were
asked a series of questions pertaining to political beliefs and attitudes.
Participants Participants were recruited through Polimetrix, a leading firm in online opinion
measurement in political science. Two hundred and twenty two adults participated in the
study. Fifty percent of participants were female, 77 percent identified as white or
Caucasian, 11 percent identified as Black or African American, 9 percent as Hispanic,
and 3 percent as other. The average age of the participants was 45 years old (SD = 15.9,
Range = 18 to 83). Sixty one percent of the participants had beyond high school
education. Since chi-square tests indicated no significant differences between the
experimental conditions, these demographic variables were not included as covariates.
98
Materials The baseline story was culled from real articles addressing the 2008 election. The
empowered voter portrayal was created to mirror the patterns found in newspaper articles
in the 1950s-1960s and portrayed voters as being mobilized by the candidates and as
important actors in electoral process (Figure 5.1). To create realistic newspaper articles, I
worked with a journalist with over 20 years of print journalism experience in covering
politics and elections to craft an empowered voter portrayal. To reflect the characteristics
of newspaper articles during this period, party labels were inserted as well. The control
article consisted of three paragraphs that were identical to the empowered voter portrayal
but without a manipulation paragraph featuring voters as empowered agents in electoral
process and party labels. This ensured that any differences found between the control
group and other conditions were due to the manipulation of portrayal inserted in the
empowered voter condition and not simply due to the exposure to election related
coverage.
99
Figure 5.1. Newspaper Article Used in the Experiment
National News Washington (AP)—There is life in politics after New Hampshire and Iowa. Presidential hopefuls who survived those two early presidential contests in January will face a daunting challenge spanning 21 states and four time zones: the Feb. 5 primaries. Political observers say they expect Feb. 5 voting to winnow the field even further—perhaps to two or three major candidates. "It may not decide who gets the nomination, but Super Duper Tuesday will probably take a huge chunk of the field out," said Joe Patterson, Washington-based political analyst. While candidates navigate hurdles posed by the primaries, major party hopefuls are asking American voters to perform their own important role in the 2008 election. “We need every vote to move this country forward,” one Republican candidate said. A Democratic candidate opined, “If voters act in the interests and welfare of the country and the world, they will make a historic difference in this election.” (the empowered voter portrayal, not italicized in the actual experiment). It is hard to predict how things will turn out in this election. But, one thing is certain. As laid out by the United States Constitution, the individual who receives a majority of votes for president in the Electoral College in November will be the 44th president of the United States, and will be sworn in to the office early 2009. Note: The newspaper article used in the empowered voter condition is displayed here. The article for the control condition did not contain the italicized paragraph.
Measures
Dependent variables. Intention to vote was measured by the following question:
“Looking forward to the 2008 election, do you expect to vote in the general election?
Please indicate how likely you think it is that you will vote in the general election in
2008, where ‘0’ means you definitely will not vote and ‘10’ means you definitely will
vote.” The self-reported intention to vote is considered to be susceptible to the social
desirability bias—i.e., participants tend to over-report their intention to vote simply
because it is more socially acceptable (Belli, Traugot, Young, & McGonagle, 1999).
100
However, since the experimental conditions were randomly assigned, it is safe to assume
that any social desirability bias we might find was also randomly assigned. Therefore,
any differences we find between conditions should not be attributed to the social
desirability effect.
Civic duty was measured by the extent to which participants agreed with the
following statement: “People like me have a duty to vote in elections.” The response
options ranged from “strongly disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” “neither disagree nor
agree,” “somewhat agree,” to “strongly agree.”
Political efficacy was measured in two dimensions. Internal efficacy was
measured by the extent to which the participants agreed with the following five
statements (Cronbach’s alpha = .757): (a) “I consider myself well-qualified to participate
in elections”; (b) “I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political
issue facing our country”; (c) “I feel that I could do as good a job in public office as most
other people”; (d) “I think that I am as well-informed about the election as most people”;
(e) “Sometimes elections seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really
understand what’s going on” (reverse-coded). The response options ranged from “1 =
strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree.”
External efficacy was measured by the extent to which the participants agreed
with the following three items (Cronbach’s alpha = .671): (a) “People like me don’t have
any say about who gets to be president” (reverse-coded); (b) “I don’t think public
officials care much what people like me think” (reverse-coded); and (c) “Candidates for
101
office are only interested in people’s votes, not in their opinions” (reverse-coded). The
response options ranged from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree.”
The perceived meaningfulness of elections consisted of four questions
(Cronbach’s alpha = .647). The participants were asked to state the extent to which they
agreed with the following statements: (a) “It makes a difference who gets elected”; (b)
“The policies of government will always be the same regardless of which party is in
power” (reverse-coded); (c) “Candidates all say the same things these days” (reverse-
coded); (d) “There are important differences between the political parties in America.”
The response options ranged from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree.”
Desire for information seeking was measured by the following question: “Are you
interested in getting more information on the topic discussed in the article?” The response
options consisted of “not at all interested,” “not so interested” “somewhat interested” and
“very much interested.”
Media trust was measured by the following six items (Cronbach’s alpha = .914):
(a) “How much of the time do you think you can trust newspapers to report the news
fairly?” (“none of the time,” “only some of the time,” “most of the time,” “just about
always”); (b) “Thinking about the newspapers you are most familiar with, please indicate
whether you think they are fair, (c) tell the whole story, (d) accurate, (e) can be trusted”
(“not at all,” “not so much,” “not sure,” “somewhat,” “very much”); (f) “How much
confidence would you say you have in the people now running the newspapers?” (“none
at all,” “not much,” “some,” “a great deal”). For multiple item measurements, all scales
102
were added and converted to 0 to 1, with higher scores representing higher levels of each
dependent variable.
Independent variables. Participants were asked whether they identified as
Democrats, Republicans, Independents or other. Thirty four percent of participants
identified themselves as Democrats, 32 percent as Republicans, 21 percent as
Independents, and 12 percent other. Those who identified as either Democrats or
Republicans were classified as partisans (66 percent).
Political knowledge was measured by the following five items (Cronbach’s alpha
= .645): (a) “What job or political office is now held by Dick Cheney?”; (b) “Do you
happen to know which party currently has a majority in the U.S. House of
Representatives?”; (c) “Whose responsibility is it to determine if a law is constitutional or
not?”; (d) “How much of a majority is required for the U.S. Senate and House to override
a presidential veto?”; (e) “Which one of the parties would you say is more conservative
than the other at the national level?” Because participants were asked to respond to these
knowledge items via on-line, there was a concern about respondents using search engines
to look for correct answers while taking the survey. In order to prevent potential
“cheating” on these knowledge items, a 20-second time limit was set to answer each
question, and participants were notified of the time limit. On average, the participants
answered 3.7 out of 5 questions correctly (SD = 1.3).
103
Covariates.14 Political interest was measured using the following question: “Some
people seem to follow what’s going on in government and public affairs most of the time,
whether there’s an election going on or not. Others aren’t that interested. How often
would you say you follow what’s going on in government and public affairs?” The
response options included “hardly at all” (3.6%), “only now and then” (5.0%), “some of
the time” (31.1%), “most of the time” (60.4%). The average score was 3.48 (SD = .75). A
t-test was conducted to see if there were any differences between the empowered voter
portrayal and the control condition. The results indicated some differences between the
experimental conditions. Specifically, those who were in the empowered voter condition
showed a slightly higher level of political interest (mean = 3.57) compared to the control
group (mean = 3.39). Therefore, political interest was included as a covariate.
Political participation was measured using the following question: “Here is a list
of things some people do about government and politics. Have you happened to have
done any of these things in the past?” Participants were asked to select from the
following five political activities that they have done in the past: (a) Tried to persuade
someone to vote for a specific candidate or party; (b) Wore a campaign button, put a
campaign sticker on your car, or placed a sign in your window or in front of your house;
(c) Attended political meetings, rallies, speeches, dinners or things like that to support a
particular candidate; (d) Worked for a political party or candidate as a volunteer or paid
14 While most experiments ignore other influences on dependent variable (mainly because random assignments to treatment and control group typically ensure researchers’ ability to estimate the effects of experiments without bias), some scholars argue for the inclusion of covariates. For instance, Franklin (1991) suggests that by including variance in experiments, “greater precision can be achieved for a fixed cost, or equal precision reached for a lower price” (p. 3).
104
staff; or (e) Gave money to a political party or an individual candidate for public office.
The political participation item ranged from “none of the above” (21.1%), “one of the
above” (31.1%), “two of the above” (16.7%), “three of the above” (10.8%), “four of the
above” (10.4%), and “all of the above” (9.9%). The average score was 1.88 activities (SD
= 1.6). As in political interest item, a t-test was conducted to see if there were any
differences between conditions. The results suggested no difference. Therefore, political
participation was not included as a covariate.
Previous voting behavior was measured using the following question: “Have you
ever voted in local, state or national elections?” Eighty-nine percent answered yes. A chi-
square test indicated some differences between the conditions. Specifically, the
empowered voter condition had a higher percentage of participants who have voted
before (93.7%) than the control group (84.6%). Therefore, previous voting behavior was
added as a covariate.
RESULTS Table 5.1 represents the summary of findings drawn from an analysis of
covariance with experimental condition, political interest, and previous voting behaviors
as covariates.
105
Table 5.1
Effects of Empowered Voter Portrayal
Control Empowered Voter Dependent variable: (N=110) (N=112)
Intent to vote .867 .910**
(.018) (.018)
Civic duty .941 .917
(.014) (.014)
Internal efficacy .811 .826
(.012) (.012)
External efficacy .502 .548**
(.019) (.019)
Meaningfulness of elections .697 .709
(.014) (.014)
Information seeking .654 .647
(.021) (.021)
Media trust .552 .598**
(.018) (.018)
Note: Table entries are estimated means with standard errors in parentheses drawn from an analysis of covariance with condition, political interest, and previous voting behavior. All scales run from zero to one, with higher values representing higher scale in dependent variables. **p < .05, one-tailed.
106
Intention to vote. As expected, social desirability bias was detected in regard to
participants’ intention to vote. As table 5.1 suggests, overall intention to vote was very
high. The control group that was not exposed to the empowered portrayal scored .867 on
the scale of 0 to 1 in terms of their participatory intentions. However, the results indicate
that the empowered portrayal had a positive impact on citizens’ intention to vote
(Hypothesis 1). Those who were exposed to the empowered voter portrayal scored even
higher on their likelihood of voting, .91. The difference between the control group and
the treatment group is statistically significant (F = 2.768, p = .049).
Civic duty. The results of citizens’ civic duty also indicate a very high sense of
duty among both the control group and those in the empowered voter condition.
Interestingly, those in the control group scored higher on civic duty item, .941, compared
to the treatment group, .917. The difference, however, was not statistically significant (F
= 1.544, p = .108).
While my hypothesis was not supported (Hypothesis 2), it is possible that the
results might have something to do with the sample of this study. The sample of this
experiment is approaching middle-age (average = 45 years old, SD = 15.9), and it is
entirely possible that these citizens have already established their sense of civic duty as
citizens over their lifespan. Therefore, a one-time exposure to the empowered voter
portrayal in the experiment may not alter their already established sense of civic duty. On
the other hand, younger adults who are in the process of learning the roles as citizens
might be more susceptible to the news portrayal of voters and electoral participation in
acquiring a sense of duty. Indeed, while overall feeling of sense of duty remained strong
107
over the years regardless of voter turnout and news media coverage of voters and
electoral politics, recent studies suggest that it is young adults, in particular, that are
losing their sense of obligation toward politics (Conover & Searing, 2000; Doppelt &
Shearer, 2001; National Association of Secretaries of State, 1999). The effect of the
empowered portrayal on young adults will be discussed in the next chapter.
Political efficacy. As expected, the overall level of internal efficacy was
considerably higher than the level of external efficacy. For instance, within the control
group, the level of internal efficacy was about .30 higher than external efficacy (.811 vs.
.502). These data suggest that despite declines in voter turnout and political trust,
citizens’ confidence and beliefs about their impact on the political process remain steady.
In terms of hypotheses, I predicted that those who are exposed to the empowered voter
portrayal would have a higher level of external political efficacy and similar level of
internal efficacy (Hypothesis 3). The results show that the hypothesis was supported.
Those who were exposed to the empowered voter portrayal scored higher on external
efficacy (.548) than the control group (.502), and the difference was statistically
significant (F = 2.964, p = .043). Since external efficacy and political trust are highly
correlated and are considered broad indicators of support for political system (Sullivan &
Riedel, 2001), this finding is particularly important in a time of increased cynicism and
alienation. The results for internal efficacy show a slight increase among those who read
the empowered voter portrayal article (.811 vs. .826), but as hypothesized, the difference
was not statistically significant (F = .818, p = .367).
108
Meaningfulness of elections. Does the empowered voter portrayal increase the
perceived meaningfulness of elections (Hypothesis 4)? The results illustrate that it does
not. Those in the control condition and the empowered voter condition expressed similar
level of perceived meaningfulness of elections (.697 vs. .709, F = .329, p = .284).
Information seeking. I also tested the effects of the empowered voter portrayal on
citizens’ interest in seeking information about politics (Hypothesis 5). The results
indicate that there was no significant difference in people’s information seeking desires
between the control condition and the empowered voter condition (.654 vs. .647, F =
.052, p = .41). This finding is contrary to Kam’s (2007) findings on the effects of civic
duty appeal and citizens’ information seeking behaviors. Kam (2007) found that when
people are reminded of their civic duty (to learn about issues), they were more likely to
seek information on candidates’ issues stances. I suspect that the differences in results
might rest on the scope of these studies. While Kam tested participants’ tendency to seek
information on candidate’s policy stance explicitly listed in her manipulation article, this
study looked at interest in seeking information on the topic of election in general (“Are
you interested in getting more information on the topic discussed in the article?”) Also,
news articles used in this study did not contain any information on candidates’ policy
issue stances. Thus, it might be the case that participants in this study did not feel a need
to seek more information on what they might already know.
Media trust. Next, I explored the possibility that news media themselves can
benefit from featuring voters as important players in political system. Based on the level
of media trust in the 1950s and the 1960s and congruity theory, I predicted that the
109
empowered voter portrayal would have a positive impact on citizens’ trust in news media
(Hypothesis 6). As expected, along with external efficacy, overall trust in news media
appeared to be relatively low compared to other variables. However, those who were
exposed to the empowered voter portrayal exhibited a higher level of media trust
compared to the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (.598 vs.
.552, F = 3.254, p = .036). This finding is crucial at a time of prevalent media distrust
among the public. It is hopeful that the press can regain the trust of citizens that they have
lost for quite some time by implementing subtle changes in their political campaign
coverage. Regaining the legitimacy of the press is essential for the overall health of
democracy, but for a practical reason for the journalists as well. Several studies have
revealed that trust in news media is associated with news exposure (Kiousis, 2001;
Rimmer & Weaver, 1987), and the decline of trust in news media is considered a possible
explanation for the decline in news exposure (Gans, 2003). Therefore, journalists might
reap the benefit of increased trust and news consumption by bringing the voters back to
political arena and to the news.
Moderating effects of partisanship and political knowledge. As seen in Table 5.2
and 5.3, none of the interaction terms were significant (RQ 1).15 This finding suggests
that the effects of the empowered voter portrayal did not vary across individuals.
15 Note that there were main effects of partisanship on external efficacy and meaningfulness of elections as well as main effects of knowledge on intentions to vote and internal efficacy. The effects of partisanship on external efficacy are to be expected as scholars suggest some positive correlation between the two (Teixeira, 1987), and the effects on meaningfulness of elections may be caused by strong party cues in items measuring this variable. The main effects of knowledge on intentions to vote and internal efficacy are expected as other survey research has found the same relationship (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996).
110
Table 5.2
Moderating Effects of Partisanship
Control Empowered Voter Dependent variable (N=110) (N=112)
Intent to vote
Partisan .882 .915 Condition x Partisan (n=147) (.022) (.021) F = .455
Nonpartisan .834 .903 p = .501 (n=75) (.031) (.031)
Civic duty Partisan .953 .930
(.017) (.017) F = .000 Nonpartisan .916 .892 p = .999
(.024) (.024) Internal efficacy
Partisan .803 .821 (.014) (.014) F = .004
Nonpartisan .822 .841 p = .950 (.02) (.021)
External efficacy Partisan .533 .564
(.023) (.023) F = .898 Nonpartisan .441 .524 p = .344
(.032) (.032) Meaningfulness of elections
Partisan .724 .741 (.018) (.017) F = .069
Nonpartisan .643 .649 p = .793 (.024) (.024)
Information seeking Partisan .642 .664
(.026) (.026) F = 1.908 Nonpartisan .677 .612 p = .169
(.036) (.037)
111
Control Empowered Voter
Dependent variable (N=110) (N=112) Media trust
Partisan .568 .605 (.023) (.022) F = .238
Nonpartisan .522 .586 p = .626 (.032) (.032)
Note: Table entries are estimated means with standard errors in parentheses, drawn from an analysis of covariance with condition, partisanship, political knowledge, and interactions for condition x partisanship and condition x political knowledge with covariates political interest and previous voting behavior. All scales run from zero to one, with higher values representing higher scale in dependent variables.
112
Table 5.3
Moderating Effects of Political Knowledge
Control Empowered Voter Dependent variable (N=110) (N=112)
Intent to vote
0-1 answered correctly .771 .731 (n=15) (.070) (.072)
2 answered correctly .883 .914 Condition x Knowledge (n=23) (.057) (.053) F = .000
3 answered correctly .767 .933 p = .988 (n=38) (.043) (.043)
4 answered correctly .894 .917 (n=75) (.030) (.033)
5 answered correctly .878 .928 (n=71) (.033) (.031)
Civic duty 0-1 .910 1.00
(.053) (.055) 2 .952 .889 (.044) (.041) F = 1.474
3 .900 .932 p = .226 (.033) (.033)
4 .933 .871 (.023) (.025)
5 .959 .923 (.026) (.024)
Internal efficacy 0-1 .718 .717
(.045) (.046) 2 .758 .751 (.036) (.036) F = .139
3 .844 .825 p = .709 (.027) (.028)
4 .781 .855 (.019) (.021)
5 .868 .861 (.021) (.020)
113
Control Empowered Voter Dependent variable (N=110) (N=112) External efficacy
0-1 .416 .584 (.073) (.075)
2 .447 .593 (.059) (.056) F = 1.531
3 .437 .430 p = .217 (.045) (.045)
4 .490 .555 (.032) (.034)
5 .543 .566 (.035) (.033)
Meaningfulness of elections 0-1 .684 .741
(.055) (.057) 2 .684 .668 (.045) (.042) F = .187
3 .626 .682 p = .666 (.036) (.034)
4 .713 .702 (.024) (.026)
5 .680 .693 (.027) (.025)
Information seeking 0-1 .621 .755
(.083) (.086) 2 .678 .621 (.068) (.064) F = 1.567
3 .680 .628 p = .212 (.051) (.051)
4 .633 .689 (.036) (.039)
5 .682 .580 (.040) (.037)
114
Control Empowered Voter
Dependent variable (N=110) (N=112) Media trust
0-1 .602 .587 (.071) (.073)
2 .577 .747 (.061) (.054) F = .586
3 .519 .581 p = .445 (.044) (.044)
4 .510 .546 (.031) (.033)
5 .582 .597 (.034) (.032)
Note: Table entries are estimated means with standard errors in parentheses, drawn from an analysis of covariance with condition, partisanship, political knowledge, and interactions for condition x partisanship and condition x political knowledge with covariates political interest and previous voting behavior. All scales run from zero to one, with higher values representing higher scale in dependent variables.
DISCUSSION
This experiment shows that the ways in which journalists portray voters had a
significant impact on citizens’ participatory intentions and political attitudes. When
voters were cast as efficacious and as an important part of the electoral system (as found
in the 1950s and the 1960s), citizens’ intentions to vote and external efficacy increased.
Based on the level of political engagement in the 1950s and the 1960s, the results point to
the possibility that the ways in which news media portrayed electoral participation may
have contributed to the robust political engagement during these periods. Moreover, the
positive portrayals of voters had a spillover effect on news media themselves. When
citizens encountered empowered portrayals of themselves in the news, they were more
likely to trust the news media. These findings provide optimism to scholars, pundits and
115
media organizations about what we can do to encourage citizens to be more engaged in
elections and to be less cynical about political process and news media.
There are some limitations to these findings, however. One limitation is that while
I found significant effects of news portrayals on participatory intentions and political
attitudes in the present time, this study does not validate the causal relationship between
news coverage and citizens’ political participation and attitudes in the 1950s and the
1960s. There is simply no way to test the actual effects of the empowered voter portrayals
on people who were living and consuming news back in the 1950s and the 1960s. Still, it
is intriguing to find that the news portrayal found in earlier times propelled citizens to be
more efficacious and engaging as well as more trusting of the press.
Another limitation is that these findings are confined to short-term effects,
therefore, long-term effects of the empowered voter portrayal are unknown. In order to
measure the long-term effects of the empowered voter portrayal on citizens’ participatory
intentions and political attitudes as well as trust in news media, a longitudinal study is
necessary. The longitudinal study will also help better understand the generalizability of
the results. Because this study was conducted during the early primary election cycle in
2008, it should be examined that whether or not these findings will continue to hold in
other contexts.
Finally, there is an important question to be asked in terms of political
socialization via news media. This study tested the effects of news portrayal found in the
1950s and the 1960s on political attitudes among citizens with an average age of 45 (SD
= 15.9). However, as discussed in Chapter One, the biggest concern for the future of
116
democracy rests on the youngest generation of voters. The period of adolescence is the
most impressionable one in the political socialization process (Sears, 1975), and it is
when individuals form their political identities, attitudes and behaviors (Hess & Torney,
1967; Greenstein, 1968; Sears, 1975). Because of the close link between preadult
political socialization and adult political orientation, attitudes and behaviors suggested by
socialization scholars (Andolina et al., 2003; Beck & Jennings, 1982; Conway &
Damico, 2001; Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1995), it is essential to examine if the
results found among older cohorts will still hold when tested on younger voters nation’s
youngest voters.
The replication of this experiment using young adult sample is particularly
important since there is mounting evidence to indicate that it is the younger generation of
voters that has become particularly alienated from the political process (Delli Carpini,
2000). Compared to their parents’ generation, today’s young people are less likely to be
interested in public affairs, to be knowledgeable about political process or issues, to feel
the obligation associated with citizenship, to participate politically through voting or by
making their views known, or to trust their fellow citizens (Bennett, 2001; Delli Carpini,
2000; Graber, 2000; Lopez et al., 2006; Macedo et al., 2005; Mindich, 2005; Sherr &
Staples, 2004; Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006).
It is worth noting that the younger generation of voters were raised in the news
media environment where their roles as voters were presented predominantly in terms of
opinion polls and as pawns of elites rather than in the news environment where voters are
featured as empowered agents in a democratic system (see Chapter Four). The next
117
chapter will examine potential socialization effects of news media on young adults’
political beliefs and attitudes and see if it is possible to motivate today’s young adults to
engage in electoral politics via empowered portrayals of voters in the news media.
118
Chapter 6. Effects of Portrayals in the News: College Students
Chapter Five examined how portraying voters as efficacious and as important
agents in the democratic process in news coverage affects citizens’ political attitudes. The
experiment revealed that when voters are portrayed as empowered agents in election
coverage, citizens’ intention to vote, external efficacy, and trust in news media increased
(as might have been the case in the 1950s and 1960s). These results suggest that ways in
which print news media cover voters may have important socialization effects on
citizens’ participatory intentions and their political attitudes.
This chapter examines if similar effects can be found among nations’ youngest
voters. Today’s young adults have often been criticized for their lack of interest,
knowledge, and participation in the political arena. Particularly in the field of electoral
politics, young adults fall behind their older counterparts considerably. While there are
many possible reasons why today’s youth are staying away from electoral politics, the
patterns found in my content analysis offer an important observation on the political
socialization of today’s youth: this cohort was not raised on the “empowered voter”
portrayal in print coverage of elections as their grandparents and, to a smaller extent,
their parents were.
It is entirely possible that older generations were raised in a political moment in
which voters were featured as efficacious and as central to the system. It is also possible
that these attributes in news stories influenced how those generation of voters regarded
their roles in the polity. Similarly, current news depictions of voters as pawns in elite
119
political strategy and public opinion polls may have possibly influenced how young
people have been socialized to view their roles as citizens. While no one experiment
could test these matters definitively, this chapter explores if how voters were depicted in
an earlier era are more likely to encourage young people to see their attitudes and
behaviors as central to political life.
POLITICAL DISENGAGEMENT OF YOUTH
Over the past four decades, Americans of all ages have turned away from politics,
but the rate of political disengagement among young adults has been beyond comparison
to any other age groups. In studies conducted prior to 2007, researchers suggest that
today’s young adults lack the knowledge, skills and values to inherit and sustain
democratic life. It should be noted that some of the pessimistic trends became tempered
with time (e.g., a spike in voter turnout among 18-24 year olds in 2004), and scholars
publishing after 2007 began to posit more optimistic views on political engagement of
today’s young adults (e.g., Bennett, 2008; Dalton, 2007). Nonetheless, an overall decline
in political engagement among today’s youth relative to their older counterparts (at the
same age) begs serious investigation.
For instance, today’s young adults are less likely to feel sense of duty as citizens
or trust their fellow citizens compared to other generations (Delli Carpini, 2000).
According to the Pew Research Center (1992, 2007), when asked if they agree with the
statement, “It’s my duty as a citizen to always vote,” only 40% of young adults (18-25
years-old) agreed while 80% of those over fifty agreed. Another study suggests that
120
today’s young people are significantly less likely to believe that most people can be
trusted, try to be helpful, or are fair compared to the youth cohort of the 1970s (Rahn &
Transue, 1998).
In the realm of electoral politics, the 2004 election and the current 2008 primary
season not-withstanding, voter turnout rate among young adults has declined over the
years.16 In 1972 when 18 year-olds first gained their right to vote, more than a half of
young adults between 18 to 24 year-olds turned out, but only one-third of young people
did in 2000 (U.S. Census, 2002). Another study suggests that today’s youth are less likely
to get involved with other forms of electoral process as well. For instance, the percentage
of adolescents who indicate that they “could see themselves working on a campaign”
declined by half from the mid 1970s to the last few years (Macedo et al., 2005, p. 29).
This downward trend in electoral politics up until 2004 coincides with a decline in
political interest among young adults. While 51% of Americans over 50 say they follow
politics “most of the time,” only 19% of 18-29 year-olds do (Zukin, 1997). Moreover,
whereas 59% of college students in the 1960s indicated that it is very important to keep
up with public affairs, 27% of college students did in 1997 (Sax, Astin, Korn, &
Mahoney, 1997).
Despite the fact that today’s young adults are more educated and have easier
access to political information than any other young cohort in the past, today’s young
people are less knowledgeable about the substance or process of politics as well (Delli
Carpini, 2000). When asked basic factual items such as “which party controls the House
121
of Representatives,” today’s young adults were 20 percentage points less likely than older
cohorts to answer correctly, whereas there was virtually no knowledge gap between
young people and older generations in the 1940s and 1950s (Delli Carpini & Keeter,
1996).
The same pattern can be observed in news consumption among young adults
(Levine, 2007). While nearly a quarter of young adults (18-25 years-old) followed the
news consistently in 1960, only 5.1% of young people do in 2000 (NES cited in Levine,
2007, p. 80). In terms of newspapers, the news media analysis in this dissertation, today’s
young adults are less likely than their parents were (at the same age) to read the
newspaper—a rate that is less than half of what it was for young adults in 1965 (Zukin,
1997). Because political interest and knowledge often serve as prerequisites for political
engagement, these data posit a grave concern for the future of democracy (Putnam,
2000).
The Causes of Disengagement
Why are today’s youth disengaged from politics? It is tempting to blame today’s
young adults for their lack of interest, knowledge, and participation in the political arena,
but researchers suggest that the causes of these patterns lie in external factors. Delli
Carpini (2000) argues that in order to engage in public life, one has to have the
“motivation, opportunity, and ability to do so” (p. 343), and the lack of each of these
factors has contributed to the current disengagement among young adults. He explains
16 See footnote 4.
122
that the motivation for young people to engage in public life has been diminished over the
past three decades after the systematic devaluing of the public sector since the Watergate
scandal in the 1970s; the meaningful opportunities to engage in public life have been
deprived by public, formal institutions (such as government, political parties, news
media, and schools) that ignore young adults and issues that are important to them; and,
consequently, young people are not adequately equipped with the ability to engage in
public life. These socialization processes unfavorable to foster engaged citizenry
combined with their relative lack of experience in public life pushed today’s young adults
from politics. Delli Carpini (2000) states,
In short, while older Americans have the ability to put the current anti-politics
environment in perspective, drawing on experiences of effective public-sector
policy, of respected public-sector leaders, and of meaningful collective action, for
Americans under the age of 30, the current environment is all they know. Never
having experienced a period in which their own participation has effected
meaningful change on an issue that mattered to them, and raised in an
environment that regularly tells them such action is unlikely to succeed, it is
hardly surprising that they are disinclined to participate in public life. Young
Americas are not disengaged because they are satisfied with the current state of
affairs, because they are apathetic, or because they do not care about their fellow
citizens. Rather, they are disengaged because they are alienated from the
institutions and processes of civic life and lack of the motivation, opportunity, and
ability to overcome this alienation (Italics original, p. 345).
123
Buckingham (1999) concurs with this point of view. He argues that young adults are
“actively excluded from the domain of politics, and from dominant forms of political
discourse,” and their disengagement from politics is “merely a rational response to their
own powerlessness” (p. 172).
If disengagement of today’s youth is a result of their powerlessness in the political
arena and the political discourse that surrounds them, would it be possible to reverse the
course by injecting a different form of political discourse that features voters as
efficacious and important actors in a democratic process (found in the 1950s and the
1960s) to encourage today’s young adults to engage in politics? Can positive portrayals
of voters and electoral process increase young adults’ motivation to participate in
electoral activities? And, ultimately, can the empowered news coverage create
empowered electorate out of today’s youth? Because the adolescent years are considered
the most impressionable years in the political socialization process, and political learning
during the period of adolescence profoundly impacts later political attitudes and
behaviors (Hess & Torney, 1967; Greenstein, 1968; Sears, 1975), these questions merit
our attention.
Furthermore, these questions are quite timely. At the time of writing, we are
witnessing a major deviation from the norm in terms of electoral campaigns and news
media coverage. Although political parties, candidates, and news media have long
ignored young adults, in the year 2008 they have reached out to young voters placing an
unprecedented spotlight on their engagement and the important roles they play in the
presidential election (and young voters are turning out to vote in unprecedented
124
numbers). Young voters are featured on the cover of Time magazine (February 11, 2008)
“Why Young Voters Care Again: And Why Their Vote Matters” and numerous other
articles across the country highlight youth engagement in the 2008 elections (e.g., “How
Youth Rule An Election” Forbes.com, March 26, 2008; “Millennials Are About to Give
American Politics an Extreme Makeover” The Huffington Post, February 7, 2008;
“Young Obama Backers Twist Parents’ Arms,” The New York Times, April 8, 2008;
“Youth Vote Surge in Austin and Across the Country” The Austin American Statesman,
February 26, 2008). While this study does not offer a definitive answer to the impact of
these news coverage that focus on young voters, it takes a first step in examining the
impacts of putting voters at the center stage of electoral process in news media on young
adults.
HYPOTHESES This chapter tests seven hypotheses that are identical to the ones examined in the
previous chapter.
H1: The empowered voter portrayal will increase intention to vote.
H2: The empowered voter portrayal will increase sense of civic duty.
H3: The empowered voter portrayal will increase external political efficacy while
exerting no impact on the level of internal efficacy.
H4: The empowered voter portrayal will increase meaningfulness of elections.
H5: The empowered voter portrayal will increase information-seeking desires.
H6: The empowered voter portrayal will increase trust in news media.
125
RQ 1: Do political knowledge and partisanship either enhance or diminish
the effects of the empowered voter portrayal?
While the rationale behind these hypotheses are similar to those explained in the
previous chapter, it is particularly important to reexamine these hypotheses with young
adults for two reasons. First, considering the acute decline in political engagement among
youth, it is vital to test these hypotheses with youth and explore the ways to engage them
in politics. Second, because young adults are at the most impressionable stage in political
socialization process, socialization gains (such as hypothesized below) may have the
long-term effects. A close link between political socialization during youth and adult
political attitudes and behaviors suggested by socialization literature points to the long-
term implications of these hypothesized effects.
I also speculate that these hypotheses are more likely to be supported among
youth compared to older citizens. Unlike older citizens (who tend to have relatively
crystallized attitudes about civic duty and electoral engagement), young adults (who lack
political socialization experiences) are still in the process of learning their roles and
responsibilities as citizens (Greenstein, 1968). Therefore, compared to older citizens,
young adults may be more likely to be influenced by positive news coverage of voters.
METHODOLOGY To test these hypotheses, an on-line experiment was conducted. I used a post-test
only between-subjects experimental design with random assignment to one of two
conditions: the empowered voter condition and a control condition.
126
Procedure The experiments took place online between November and December 2007. Each
participant completed a questionnaire regarding media habits and political engagement
and then was randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the empowered voter condition
or control condition. As in the experiment employed in the previous chapter, in the
empowered voter condition, participants read an article which contained a paragraph
where voters were featured as efficacious and mobilized by elites (italicized in Figure
5.1), and in control condition, participants read the same article without the manipulation
paragraph. After the participants read the article, they were asked a series of questions
pertaining to political beliefs and attitudes.
Participants Participants were recruited through a department participant pool at a large
Southwestern university using flyers and e-mail messages. Only those who were between
18 and 29 years old and eligible to vote in the United States were allowed to participate
in the study. One hundred and twelve college students participated in the study. Sixty one
percent of participants were female, 54 percent identified as white or Caucasian, 16
percent identified as Hispanic, 20 percent as Asian or Pacific Islander, and 4 percent as
Black or African American. The average age of the participants was 20 years old (SD =
1.9). The use of college sophomores in experiments often raises questions concerning
generalizability of results (Sears, 1986). However, the focus of this study is to examine
the framing effects on the nation’s youngest voters. Therefore, the use of an
127
undergraduate sample is appropriate for this study. Chi-square tests indicated no
significant differences for these demographic dimensions across the experimental
conditions.
Measures Dependent variables. All of the dependent variables—intention to vote, sense of
civic duty, internal efficacy, external efficacy, perceived meaningfulness of elections,
information seeking desires, trust in news media—were measured by the items identified
in Chapter Five. Reliability scores for multi-item measurements in this sample were as
follows: internal efficacy (Cronbach’s alpha = .825), external efficacy (Cronbach’s alpha
= .577), perceived meaningfulness of elections (Cronbach’s alpha = .551), and trust in
news media (Cronbach’s alpha = .869).
Independent variables. Participants were asked whether they identified as
Democrats, Republicans, Independents or other. Twenty four percent of participants
identified themselves as Democrats, 26 percent as Republicans, 37 percent as
Independents, and 13 percent other. Those who identified as either Democrats or
Republicans were classified as partisans (50 percent).
Political knowledge was measured by the five factual items mentioned in the
previous chapter (Cronbach’s alpha = .483). On average, the participants answered 4 out
of 5 questions correctly (SD = 1.1). The high average score with low reliability score on
128
this variable raise some concerns about interpreting the results.17 I will discuss this point
in the results section.
Covariates. Political interest was measured using the same question in the
previous chapter: “Some people seem to follow what’s going on in government and
public affairs most of the time, whether there’s an election going on or not. Others aren’t
that interested. How often would you say you follow what’s going on in government and
public affairs?” The response options included “hardly at all” (6.2%), “only now and
then” (23.2%), “some of the time” (37.5%), “most of the time” (33.0%). The average
score was 2.97 (SD = .90). A t-test was conducted to see if there were any differences
between the empowered voter portrayal and the control condition. The result did not
indicate differences between the experimental conditions. Therefore, political interest
was not included as a covariate.
Political participation was also measured using the identical question as in the
previous chapter: if respondents have done any of these things in the past: (a) Tried to
persuade someone to vote for a specific candidate or party; (b) Wore a campaign button,
put a campaign sticker on your car, or placed a sign in your window or in front of your
house; (c) Attended political meetings, rallies, speeches, dinners or things like that to
support a particular candidate; (d) Worked for a political party or candidate as a volunteer
or paid staff; or (e) Gave money to a political party or an individual candidate for public
office. The political participation item ranged from “none of the above” (24.1%), “one of
17 Unlike the online survey conducted via Polimetrix (see Chapter 5), the online survey tool I used to conduct this experiment (Survey Monkey) did not provide a tool to set a time limit on these knowledge
129
the above” (32.1%), “two of the above” (16.1%), “three of the above” (13.4%), “four of
the above” (12.5%), and “all of the above” (1.8%). The average score was 1.63 activities
(SD = 1.4). As with the political interest item, a t-test was conducted to see if there were
any differences between conditions. The result suggested no significant differences.
Therefore, political participation was not included as a covariate.
Previous voting behavior was measured using the following question: “Have you
ever voted in local, state or national elections?” Forty three percent answered yes. A chi-
square test indicated no difference between the conditions. Therefore, previous voting
behavior was not included as a covariate.
RESULTS Table 6.1 represents the summary of findings drawn from an analysis of variance
with condition as a fixed factor.
items. Therefore, there is a concern that some of the respondents might have searched for correct answers online while taking the survey. This point will be revisited in the results section.
130
Table 6.1
Effects of Empowered Voter Portrayal on Young Voters
Control Empowered Voter Dependent variable: (N=51) (N=61)
Intent to vote .798 .882**
(.038) (.029)
Civic duty .800 .882**
(.029) (.026)
Internal efficacy .704 .718
(.026) (.024)
External efficacy .614 .671**
(.023) (.021)
Meaningfulness of elections .693 .751***
(.018) (.016)
Information seeking .603 .689**
(.030) (.028)
Media trust .646 .706**
(.021) (.019)
Note: Table entries are estimated means with standard errors in parentheses drawn from an analysis of variance with condition as a fixed factor. All scales run from zero to one, with higher values representing higher scale in dependent variables. This analysis was re-run including political interests and previous voting behaviors as covariates (see Chapter Five). When this was done, all of the results remained the same. **p < .05, ***p < .01, one-tailed.
Intention to vote. As seen among the older sample, a social desirability bias was
detected among young adults as well. An overall level of intention to vote is quite high
among young adults. The control group scored .798 on the scale of 0 to 1 in terms of their
131
intention to vote (Table 6.1). It is worth noting that the level of participatory intentions
among young adults is lower than that of the older sample revealed in the previous
chapter (.798 vs. .867 = the control group score among the older sample, see Table 5.1).
This mirrors an empirical reality—lower voter turnout among young adults. However, as
in the case of older cohorts, the empowered portrayal had a positive impact on young
adults’ intention to vote. While those who were in the control group scored .798 on their
likelihood of voting, those who were exposed to the empowered voter portrayal scored
.882, and the difference between the control group and the treatment group is statistically
significant (F = 3.698, p = .028). Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Civic duty. The results of citizens’ civic duty indicate a similar pattern found in
intention to vote. While the young people who were in the control group showed a
relatively high level of sense of civic duty (.800), it is much lower than what was found
among the older sample (.941). What is important, however, is that although the
empowered voter portrayal did not have a positive impact on citizens’ sense of civic duty
among the older sample, it had a statistically significant impact among young adults.
Those who read the empowered voter portrayal scored .882 on their sense of civic duty
while the control group scored .800, and the difference was statistically significant (F =
4.472, p = .018). In the previous chapter, it was noted that the older citizens’ sense of
civic duty might not be easily influenced by external stimuli such as news media
coverage of political campaigns. The results among young adults indicate otherwise.
When newspapers emphasize voters’ duty in a democratic process, young people who are
in the process of establishing their roles as citizens gained stronger sense of civic duty.
132
Because of the importance of socialization process during adolescent years, this finding is
critical.
Political efficacy. Compared to the older sample, young adults showed a lower
level of internal political efficacy. Between control groups, the level of internal efficacy
in the older sample was .811 while it was .704 among young adults. This is expected
based on young adults’ lack of experience in politics. Generally speaking, young adults
are less likely to believe that they have competence to understand and participate in
politics compared to older citizens, but their lack of confidence tends to decrease over
one’s life cycle (Abramson, 1983). The results show that young adults who read the
empowered voter portrayal expressed a slight increase in internal efficacy (.704 vs. .718),
but as hypothesized, the difference between the empowered voter group and the control
group was not statistically significant (F = .155, p = .347).
On the other hand, comparing the control groups among young adults and the
older sample, young adults showed a higher level of external efficacy than the older
sample (.614 vs. .502). This reflects a pattern suggested by MacManus (1996) that young
voters are slightly more trusting of government responsiveness. More importantly, the
results show that young adults who were exposed to the empowered voter portrayal
scored higher on external efficacy (.671) than the control group (.614), and the difference
was statistically significant (F = 3.282, p = .036). Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Meaningfulness of elections. Unlike other variables, the control groups for both
older and younger citizens expressed a similar level of perceived meaningfulness of
elections (.697 vs. .693). However, a difference can be found in the effect of news
133
portrayal. While the empowered voter portrayal did not increase the perceived
meaningfulness of elections among the older sample, it did exert a significantly positive
impact among young adults (Hypothesis 4). Those in the empowered voter condition
expressed a higher level of perceived meaningfulness of elections than those in the
control condition (.751 vs. .693, F = 5.801, p = .009).
Information seeking. Compared to the older sample, young adults expressed a
lower level of interest in seeking political information (.654 vs. .603). Intriguingly,
however, the pattern was reversed after exposed to the empowered voter portrayal. The
results among young adults showed a significant increase in information seeking desires
among those who read the empowered voter portrayal article (.603 vs. .689, F = 4.385, p
= .019). When comparing the treatment groups between the older sample and young
adults, young adults showed a higher level of interest in seeking more information than
the older sample (.689 vs. .647). Hypothesis 5 was supported.
Media trust. Finally, contrary to the conventional wisdom that today’s young
adults are cynical, the data suggest that young adults had a higher level of trust in news
media than the older sample (.646 vs. .552). Further, those who were exposed to the
empowered voter portrayal exhibited a higher level of trust in news media compared to
the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (.706 vs. .646, F =
4.318, p = .02). Based on the findings on information seeking and media trust, featuring
voters as empowered agents in the democratic process can influence young adults’ often
lamented indifference toward political news and cynicism. Hypothesis 6 was supported.
134
Moderating effects of partisanship and political knowledge. Table 6.2 and 6.3
indicate that none of the interaction terms were significant (RQ 1).18 As in the case of the
older sample, these results suggest that there is no difference between partisans and
nonpartisans and between those with a high level of political knowledge and a low level
of political knowledge in terms of the effects of the empowered voter portrayal. Based on
the results from both the older citizens and young adults, it is reasonable to conclude that
the effects of the empowered voter portrayal are not moderated by partisanship or
political sophistication.
However, these results should be interpreted with caution. As discussed earlier,
there is a concern about the accuracy of respondents’ political knowledge among young
adults. The reliability score for political knowledge items was relatively low among
young adults (Cronbach’s alpha = .483) compared to the older sample (Cronbach’s alpha
= .645), and the average score for political knowledge items was quite high—on average,
young adults answered 4 out of 5 questions correctly (SD = 1.1) whereas the older sample
scored an average of 3.7 out of 5 (SD = 1.3) on the same questions. Although my sample
comes from college students that tend to have a relatively high level of political
sophistication, the combination of low reliability score and unusually high level of
political knowledge posits a concern. As noted earlier (footnote 1), unlike the online
18 Note that there were main effects of partisanship on intentions to vote and civic duty as well as main effects of knowledge on civic duty and internal efficacy. The effects of partisanship on intentions to vote and the effects of knowledge on internal efficacy are to be expected as scholars suggest positive correlations between the two (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Maisel & Buckley, 2004). However, main effects of partisanship and knowledge on civic duty are unique to this sample and not much is known about the effects of partisanship and knowledge on civic duty among this particular age group. In order to fully understand these patterns, further studies are necessary.
135
survey conducted via Polimetrix (see Chapter 5), the online survey tool I used to conduct
this experiment did not provide a tool to set a time limit on these knowledge items.
Therefore, it is possible that some of the respondents have searched for correct answers
online while taking the survey.
136
Table 6.2
Moderating Effects of Partisanship among Young Voters
Control Empowered Voter Dependent variable (N=51) (N=61)
Intent to vote
Partisan .869 .929 Condition x Partisan (n=56) (.046) (.040) F = .062
Nonpartisan .745 .825 p = .804 (n=56) (.043) (.042)
Civic duty Partisan .862 .914
(.041) (.035) F = .151 Nonpartisan .756 .837 p = .699
(.038) (.037) Internal efficacy
Partisan .705 .716 (.037) (.032) F = .053
Nonpartisan .714 .710 p = .819 (.034) (.033)
External efficacy Partisan .607 .694
(.034) (.029) F = .777 Nonpartisan .615 .646 p = .380
(.032) (.031) Meaningfulness of elections
Partisan .722 .767 (.026) (.022) F = .193
Nonpartisan .667 .732 p = .662 (.024) (.024)
Information seeking Partisan .558 .679
(.045) (.038) F = .555 Nonpartisan .639 .697 p = .458
(.042) (.040)
137
Control Empowered Voter Dependent variable (N=51) (N=61)
Media trust
Partisan .627 .713 (.032) (.027) F = .801
Nonpartisan .663 .696 p = .373 (.030) (.029)
Note: Table entries are estimated means with standard errors in parentheses, drawn from an analysis of covariance with condition, partisanship, political knowledge, and interactions for condition x partisanship and condition x political knowledge. All scales run from zero to one, with higher values representing higher scale in dependent variables.
138
Table 6.3
Moderating Effects of Political Knowledge among Young Voters
Control Empowered Voter Dependent variable (N=51) (N=61)
Intent to vote
0-1 answered correctly .515 .448 (n=4) (.128) (.222)
2 answered correctly .656 .817 Condition x Knowledge (n=5) (.159) (.128) F = .334
3 answered correctly .819 .974 p = .564 (n=18) (.070) (.078)
4 answered correctly .868 .844 (n=28) (.066) (.054)
5 answered correctly .811 .893 (n=57) (.045) (.039)
Civic duty 0-1 .450 .765
(.113) (.196) 2 .751 .812 (.140) (.113) F = .025
3 .810 .841 p = .875 (.062) (.069)
4 .886 .830 (.059) (.047)
5 .810 .927 (.039) (.035)
Internal efficacy 0-1 .520 .603
(.105) (.183) 2 .700 .626 (.131) (.105) F = .005
3 .636 .691 p = .945 (.058) (.064)
4 .716 .647 (.055) (.044)
5 .749 .775 (.037) (.032)
139
Control Empowered Voter
Dependent variable (N=51) (N=61)
External efficacy 0-1 .689 .643
(.098) (.170) 2 .732 .741 (.122) (.098) F = .833
3 .634 .678 p = .364 (.054) (.060)
4 .618 .639 (.051) (.041)
5 .586 .678 (.034) (.030)
Meaningfulness of elections 0-1 .639 .629
(.073) (.127) 2 .807 .857 (.091) (.073) F = .159
3 .699 .707 p = .691 (.040) (.045)
4 .706 .742 (.038) (.031)
5 .686 .758 (.025) (.022)
Information seeking 0-1 .598 .765
(.125) (.218) 2 .581 .412 (.156) (.125) F = .553
3 .659 .754 p = .459 (.069) (.077)
4 .618 .718 (.065) (.053)
5 .571 .682 (.044) (.038)
140
Control Empowered Voter
Dependent variable (N=51) (N=61)
Media trust 0-1 .528 .820
(.089) (.154) 2 .792 .596 (.110) (.089) F = .145
3 .670 .736 p = .705 (.049) (.054)
4 .660 .681 (.046) (.037)
5 .632 .719 (.031) (.027)
Note: Table entries are estimated means with standard errors in parentheses, drawn from an analysis of covariance with condition, partisanship, political knowledge, and interactions for condition x partisanship and condition x political knowledge. All scales run from zero to one, with higher values representing higher scale in dependent variables.
DISCUSSION
This experiment illustrates that how journalists feature voters in election
coverage has important implications for young adults’ political attitudes and for the news
media. When young adults are exposed to news coverage featuring voters as empowered
agents in electoral process, their participatory intentions, sense of civic duty, external
efficacy, perceived meaningfulness of elections, information seeking desires, and trust in
news media increased. These findings show that while today’s youth have not been
brought up in the news environment in which their roles as voters are discussed in an
empowering way, a subtle change in news coverage might encourage today’s young
adults to get involved in electoral politics.
141
Moreover, comparisons between the older sample and young adults suggest that
the positive gains of the news coverage are larger among young adults. While there were
no gains in older citizens’ sense of civic duty, perceived meaningfulness of elections, and
information seeking desires, young adults gained a higher level of civic duty, perception
that elections are meaningful, and information seeking desires after reading the
empowered voter portrayal article.
Of course, some of these effects may be attributed to the nature of the college
student sample. Sears (1986) suggests that college students are systematically different
from general populations or other late adolescents in general since they have “unusually
adept cognitive skills” (p. 521) and a tendency to easily comply with authority. However,
it is also the case that (1) the fact that the older sample gained in the areas of intention to
vote, external efficacy, and trust in news media as well indicate that at least in these
areas, the gains are generalizable, and (2) the areas that showed significant increase only
among young adults—sense of civic duty, perceived meaningfulness of elections, and
information seeking desires—are the areas that young adults in general have a
considerable deficiency when considered in light of older citizens because of their lack of
positive political socialization experiences. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that older
populations are less likely to gain in these areas because they may have already
established their sense of civic duty and perception that elections are meaningful, and
possess certain level of political information. Meanwhile, young adults who are in the
process of learning their roles as citizens are more likely to be influenced by these
142
socialization experiences in establishing their sense of civic duty, finding meanings of
elections, and gaining more information.
Whether or not these results are generalizable to other adolescents is an empirical
question. Studies show that there are some differences between college youth and non-
college (or “working”) youth in terms of political experiences (Jarvis, Montoya, &
Mulvoy, 2005). For instance, Jarvis et al. (2005) suggest, “young workers report lower
levels of political socialization and interest as well as fewer civic skills, group
memberships and mobilization opportunities than college students” (p. 2), and are less
likely to participate in political activities. Thus, positive effects of the empowered voter
portrayal found among the college sample provide a good reason to replicate it with other
populations of young adults.
This study offers important implications for the news media as well. When young
adults were exposed to the empowered portrayals of voters in the news, not only were
they more likely to be engaged in elections, but they became more trusting of news
media. Scholars have established links between negative news coverage to higher levels
of cynicism and lower levels of trust in political institutions and in the news media
themselves (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997). The results shown here and the previous
chapter suggest that these patterns may also work in a more positive direction. Just as
negative coverage of political institutions and politicians in the news media can produce
negative feelings toward the messenger, it may be possible for the news media to produce
positive feelings toward themselves and regain trust by adjusting the ways in which
journalists portray voters.
143
While it might be easier to blame young adults for their lack of interest in news
and an acute drop in news consumption, perhaps, it is time to stop pointing fingers at
young adults and start looking into what kinds of stories are told about the meanings of
electoral participation and the roles of voters in the news media. Mindich (2005) suggests
that “despite their disengagement with news, young people are as thoughtful and
passionate and self-reflective as they have ever been, ready to interact with news if we
just provide the right conditions for them to do so” (p. x). One of the right conditions
may simply be putting the voters back into where they belong—the center of democratic
process. The data here, at least, suggest potential benefits of doing so for the youth,
citizens, news media, and the future of democracy.
144
Chapter 7. Conclusion
A 2006 survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center found that
Americans are the “proudest people in the world” (Smith & Kim, 2006). Indeed, after
interviewing citizens of 34 countries, their data reveal that Americans reported the
highest levels of “national pride” and “pride in their democratic state” (Smith & Kim,
2006). At the same time, however, millions of Americans do not participate in the most
fundamental act that preserves their democracy: voting.
In order to better understand America’s electoral hypocrisy and the decline in
voter turnout, this study has examined how Americans have been encouraged to think
about the vote, the voting process and their roles as voters through the news media. To
review, I conducted a comprehensive content analysis of a random stratified sample of
2,138 of electoral key terms—Vote, Voter, Voting, Election and Electorate—in selected
newspapers from 1948 to 2004. I also conducted two experiments to explore the effects
of these portrayals on political attitudes among older adults (n = 222) and young adults (n
= 112).
Results from the content analysis revealed that while voters were increasingly
mentioned in the news, voters and their electoral participation have not been portrayed in
meaningful ways. Chapter Three presented how, overall, voters have not been featured in
a positive manner, have been sidelined in the democratic process, have rarely been
reminded of democratic responsibilities, and have not been connected to each other or the
political past or future in news coverage. Chapter Four looked underneath these dominant
145
portrayals for potential shifts in coverage over time. The data presented there show how
voters have been (1) featured as empowered and closely linked to political parties in
1948-1968; (2) subsumed under opinion polls and increasingly featured as pawns of elites
in 1972-2000; and (3) featured as faced with challenges in engaging in the electoral
process in 2004.
The effects of the empowered news portrayals of voters found in the 1950s and
1960s were examined with two experiments: initially with the general population, then
with young adults. These experiments revealed that the empowered portrayal of voters
had a positive impact on citizens’ political attitudes. The first experiment revealed that
when exposed to the empowered voter portrayal, adults’ participatory intentions, external
efficacy and trust in news media increased (Chapter Five). The positive effects of the
empowered portrayal of voters in the news were greater among college students. In
addition to the effects witness among the general population (an increase in participatory
intentions, external efficacy and trust in news media), young adults’ sense of civic duty,
perceived meaningfulness of elections and information seeking desire increased as well
when they were exposed to the empowered voter portrayal in the news (Chapter Six). In
both experiments, these effects were not moderated by partisanship or political
knowledge.
There are two major findings of this project. A first finding concerns the
relationship between portrayals of voters and historical trends in political engagement.
My data suggest that voters were more likely to be featured as empowered agents in the
democratic process in the period when political engagement and voter turnout were
146
relatively high (1948-1968). During the time of decline in electoral participation, voters
became increasingly featured as pawns of elites (1972-2000). These correlations suggest
that portrayals of voters in news coverage may play an important role in forming citizens’
political attitudes and behaviors. Results from experiments conducted in this dissertation
underscore this possibility. While it is hard to establish the causal relationship between
news portrayals of voters and political engagement during these political moments (e.g.,
was the empowered portrayal of voters leading to more political engagement in the 1950s
and 1960s, or the other way around?), it is still noteworthy that these patterns were found
together.
A second key finding concerns news narratives and trust in news media. My data
from Chapters Five and Six suggest that portrayals of voters in the news can positively
influence citizen’s opinions toward the press. Experiments showed that when newspapers
featured voters as efficacious and as empowered agents in the democratic system, not
only were citizens’ attitudes toward politics and electoral participation positively
affected, but their trust in the news media also increased significantly. These findings
suggest that a subtle change in electoral news coverage may help the press regain
citizens’ trust and, possibly, their readership.
CONTRIBUTIONS This dissertation has a number of contributions to the study of electoral news
coverage, political socialization, attribute agenda-setting and the profession of
journalism.
147
First, this dissertation adds to the study of electoral news coverage. Previous
research on political news coverage has focused largely on political elites and has
identified a set of troubling patterns in news coverage. To review, Bennett (1988)
suggests that news is personalized, dramatized, fragmentized and normalized.
Patterson (1993) suggests that the press is in the news business (not the democracy
business) and that the journalists’ frame of viewing and interpreting political events in
terms of a game schema limits citizens’ ability to think outside of winning and losing
candidates. Cappella and Jamieson (1997) observe that journalists tend to report
candidates’ motives behind their actions and rhetoric and these types of strategic
coverage produce political distrust and cynicism among citizens.
While previous research has focused largely on coverage of political issues and
elites, this study has focused on coverage of voters (non-elites) and locates new cause for
concern. Intriguingly, the expectations of these scholars hold true in coverage of voting;
curiously, though, the patterns take on a unique cast when the focus is on citizens rather
than political elites. For instance,
• while Bennett’s work might suggest that coverage of voting would be
personalized, this study shows that the subject of personalization in electoral
news coverage is candidates, not voters. Voters are often used to develop the
personalization of candidates and are rarely the subject of intense or detailed
personalization themselves in electoral news coverage;
• while Patterson’s work might suggest that a game schema surrounding the
coverage of voting would include voters as players in the game, this study
148
finds that game frames explicitly leave voters on the sidelines in news
coverage by featuring them as simply numbers and demographics devoid of
political agency; and
• while Cappella and Jamieson’s work might suggest that the coverage of voting
would examine the motives of electoral participation, this study details how
voters—especially after the 1960s—are rarely given credit for having any type
of incentives or goals whatsoever.
To sum, the expectations of prior research do inform the patterns described here.
Interestingly, however, they take on a different cast when the focus is on citizens rather
than political elites.
Because prior research has focused so heavily on elites, the recommending force
of prior works implies that voter turnout has decreased because candidates are portrayed
in unfavorable ways. This dissertation adds an important element to that argument. When
looking to media coverage as a possible reason for decreased turnout, the press’
reluctance to remind voters to think about their connection to ideas and policy stances, to
each other, to a larger set of intuitions, or to the ideal of democracy (the sort that appears
in President Bush’s speech that opened this dissertation) may also shape turnout patterns.
Admittedly, the qualitative patterns documented in my content analytic data are subtle.
They are also, however, quite stable. It is entirely possible that the persistent lack of
attention to democratic roles of voters in print news may have desensitized citizens to
important role(s) in electoral politics.
149
Second, this study contributes to the study of political socialization by providing
broader understandings of news media as a powerful socializing force in citizens’
political development. To review, the role of news media in political socialization has
largely been overlooked (Buckingham, 1997; Calavita, 2003). When the role of news
media is examined, the focus of studies has been largely limited to the acquisition of
political knowledge and of partisan attitudes (e.g., Atkin & Gantz, 1978; Chaffee, Ward,
& Tipton, 1970; Dominick, 1972; Drew & Reeves, 1980; Hollander, 1971; Martinelli &
Chaffee, 1995; Rubin, 1976). This project departs from the traditional approach and
investigates how news media define what it means to be a citizen in a democratic state
and the effects of these portrayals.
There are three key findings in this dissertation that add to the study of political
socialization. First, this project suggests that different generations of citizens may have
been socialized to view their roles as voters differently via news media. Results from the
content analysis reveal that there have been shifts in news coverage of voters over the
past sixty years. Therefore, citizens who were raised in the 1950s and the 1960s may
have been encouraged to think of their roles as voters as central to the democratic system,
and those who were raised in after the 1970s to view their roles as voters as pawns of
elites.
Next, this project illustrates that the way news media portray the roles of citizens
may have important effects on citizens’ political socialization. This study illustrates that
shifts in news coverage of voters are related to shifts in political energy among citizens:
voters were featured as more efficacious and empowered during the time of robust
150
electoral engagement (1948-1968) compared to later periods when voters were subsumed
under opinion polls and featured as pawns of elites in the news (1972-2000). While it is
impossible to assess the effects of news coverage of voters during the 1950s and the
1960s with today’s citizens, correlations between news portrayals of voters and political
engagement along with results from two experiments suggest that portrayals of voters in
news coverage can play an important role in forming citizens’ political attitudes and
behaviors.
Furthermore, this study indicates that socialization gains from positive portrayals
of citizens in the news may be contingent on age. While older adults showed some
positive gains in their political attitudes after reading the empowering news portrayals
witnessed in 1948-1968, larger gains were observed among young adults—an increase in
civic duty, meaningfulness of elections and information seeking desires in addition to
those found in older adults (an increase in participatory intentions, external efficacy and
trust in news media). These patterns suggest that more empowered news coverage could
be particularly beneficial to young adults who are at the prime of learning their roles and
responsibilities as citizens.
Third, this dissertation contributes to the expansion of attribute agenda-setting
theory. To review, the theory of attribute agenda-setting suggests that portrayals of an
object in the news media influence people’s attitudes toward the object. A number of
studies have examined the attributes of issues and candidates in news reports and their
effects on citizens’ political attitudes. This study adds to the theory by introducing an
analysis of attributes of citizens (voters) and civic acts (electoral participation) and their
151
effects on citizens’ political attitudes. Also, a more extensive coding scheme and a more
nuanced unit of analysis were used than in most projects examining attribute agenda-
setting. Results obtained from a longitudinal analysis of attributes and their effects on
citizens’ political attitudes suggest a great potential in the application of this theory to
political socialization.
In addition, while the original theory of attribute agenda-setting only suggests the
primary effect of attribute agenda-setting (i.e., attributes of an object salient in news
media influence people’s attitudes toward the object), this project indicates the secondary
effect of attribute agenda-setting (i.e., attributes of an object salient in news media
influence people’s attitudes toward the new media). On the secondary effects of attribute
agenda-setting, Kiousis (2002) states that while “second-level [attribute] agenda-setting
theory postulates that news attention to certain aspects of politics affect public opinion of
politics (primary object),” it is possible that “press emphasis on certain aspects of politics
might also impact public perceptions of the press (secondary object)” (p. 561). Results
from experiments support these patterns. When citizens encountered news coverage
featuring voters as empowered agents in the democratic process, not only were their
political attitudes influenced positively, but also their trust in news media increased.
While there is a need to replicate this study in a different setting in order to affirm the
relationship between the attributes of the object featured in the news and perceptions of
the news media, the results shown here demonstrate a strong link between the two and
provide strong bases for further investigation.
152
Finally, this study offers practical implications for the press and journalists. To
review, the press and journalists have suffered severe declines in trust among the public
over the past several decades. Survey data show that the percentage of people who
express a “great deal of confidence” in the press dropped from around 30 percent in early
1970s to only 12 percent in 2000 (Cook, Gronke, & Rattliff, 2000). While other
governmental institutions (such as the Executive branch, Congress, etc.) have also
experienced similar declines in trust over the past three decades, the decline in trust in the
news media has been most severe among other political institutions (Gronke & Cook,
2007).
Although there are numerous possible explanations as to why such decline has
occurred,19 many suggest that the way news media cover politics is partly to be blamed
(Cappella & Jamieson 1997; Kiousis, 2002; Patterson, 1993). For instance, Cappella and
Jamieson (1996) suggest that a strategic framing of news media creates cynicism and
distrust against the news media. Cappella and Jamieson (1996) state:
The way in which the news media frame political events stimulates cynicism.
When reporters persistently focus on self-interest as the motivation for political
decisions, they may be helping create the mistrust that feeds their own reporting
and ultimately feeds back on the institution they represent (p. 84).
19 Gronke and Cook (2007) list some of the most often cited explanations for the decline in news media trust, “the ‘blaming-the-messenger’ phenomenon, a spillover effect of the growing cynicism of the public, public disaffection from more negative ‘gotcha’ journalism, increasing attacks by politicians on the news media” (p. 262). In addition, they observe, “confidence in the press has fallen in part because those groups that formerly constituted a core of support for the press (Democrats, liberals, partisans in opposition to the party in power) have shrunk considerably over the last three decades” (p. 275).
153
This study follows these researchers’ footsteps, but by focusing on the positive
rather than the negative effects of electoral news coverage, this study shows that the press
may be able to rebuild trust by implementing subtle changes in political campaign
coverage. Results from experiments illustrate that featuring voters as empowered and
efficacious in electoral news coverage can increase citizens’ trust in news media.
Besides an obvious benefit of gaining the legitimacy of the press, this finding is
critical for journalists because trust in news media is linked to news exposure (Gans,
2003; Kiousis, 2001; Rimmer & Weaver, 1987). Along with the decline in trust in news
media, news consumption has declined over the years, and the downward trend has been
particularly acute among youth (Peiser, 2000; Patterson, 2007). A survey conducted on
1,298 citizens (613 young adults, 685 older adults) reports that while 35% of those who
are over 30 years old read a newspaper every day, only 16% of those who are between
18-30 years old do (Patterson, 2007). Because the future of the press depends on news
consumption of today’s youth, it is imperative for the press to find a way to regain their
trust. This study suggests that journalists may be able to gain some public trust and,
possibly, their readership, by bringing voters back to the center stage in electoral news
coverage. Future research should examine these patterns in a more detailed and grounded
way.
LIMITATIONS While there are several major contributions in this dissertation, this study is not
without limitations. The first set of limitations concern the content analysis. For one,
154
findings from this content analysis are limited to the datasets and the categories discussed
in Chapter Two. Therefore, other potentially important attributes of electoral participation
featured in American newspapers may have been overlooked in this study. Another
limitation is that because only 41 word clusters serve as my coding units (20 words
immediately before and after the keywords), I may have forgone some of the contexts
surrounding the electoral key terms.
Second, there are limitations concerning the measurement used in the
experiments. Because my experiments solely relied on self-reports, responses to
behavioral questions such as previous voting behaviors and participatory intentions
cannot be validated. In addition, the accuracy of political knowledge measurement used
may be in question. As noted in Chapter Six, this variable had a low reliability score
(below 0.48) and unusually high average score (on average, four out of five questions
were answered correctly) among college students. It is suggested that measuring political
knowledge (or sophistication) is tricky business (Luskin, 1987), but the unusually high
level of political knowledge in this sample signals some irregularities. I suspect that
because the experiments were conducted online and there was no time-limit imposed on
answering these questions (unlike in the experiment with older adults), some of the
participants may have looked up their answers online while taking the survey. Future
studies should be mindful of these potential pitfalls.
Third, while experiments were conducted with two different populations, the
limited external validity of the experiment using a college student sample should be
acknowledged. While it is widely common to use college sophomores in experiments,
155
college students are considered to have unique characteristics that could lead to an
overestimation of effects (Sears, 1986). Therefore, although larger effects were found
among young adults compared to the general population, these effects may be simply
because of the nature of college student sample, and not necessarily generalizable to non-
college youth. In order to more accurately assess the effects of the empowered voter
portrayal on young voters, a replication of the experiment with non-college youth is
necessary.
Fourth, another limitation concerning the generalizability of the experiments
comes from the context of the experiment. Since my experiments were conducted in the
2007-2008 election cycle, results may be unique to this election cycle. We do not know if
the results gained from the experiments in this study will continue to hold in other
election cycles. To remedy this, a replication of the experiment during a different election
cycle is necessary.
Fifth, it should also be recognized that the effects observed in the experiments
may be short lived. While results from experiments demonstrate that the empowered
voter portrayal had positive impacts on citizens’ political attitudes and their trust in news
media, we do not know if these effects can be sustained for a long time. In order to
measure the long-term effects of the empowered voter portrayal, a longitudinal study
should be conducted.
Sixth, it should be noted that this study does not demonstrate the causal
relationship between newspaper portrayals of voters and political engagement during the
1950s and the 1960s. Although the experiments attempted to test the effects of portrayals
156
of voters in newspapers during the 1950s and the 1960s, there is no simple way of
empirically testing the actual effects of the empowered voter portrayal on those who were
living at that time and exposed to these news coverage in the 1950s and the 1960s. The
effects gained from these experiments are only applicable to today’s citizens, and not to
the citizens who were living in the 1950s and the 1960s.
Finally, my findings in this dissertation are limited to one news medium: print
newspapers. During political campaign periods, citizens are exposed to various news
outlets including television, radio, magazines, blogs, etc. Although newspapers tend to be
the dominant agenda-setter for other news outlets (McCombs, 2004; Roberts &
McCombs, 1994), in order to fully understand the portrayals and the effects of voters in
the news, further investigation on how other news outlets feature electoral participation is
necessary. It should also be acknowledged that because there are so many different news
sources that citizens interact during election periods, the effects found in this study may
not be as potent in a real media environment as witnessed here.
QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This dissertation begins to unpack the portrayals of voters and electoral
participation and some of the implications of these patterns for citizens and the press.
Based on the findings discussed here, several questions for future research are raised.
First, what do journalists have to say about the patterns located in this study? It
would be interesting to interview news media professionals on what was found in the
content analysis, and ask fundamental questions, including: are voters newsworthy?
157
How? When? Why? Additionally, it would be curious to share the key findings of the
experiment with journalists and solicit their feedback on this score. If my research has
identified a subtle means of increasing intentions to participate in politics and trust in the
media, what should and can journalists, their editors and newspaper ownership do about
this? Interviewing the news media professionals on the patterns and practices of the press
located in this study will provide important insights into what can be done to provide
electoral news coverage that is more democratic and empowering to the electorate.
Second, while the present study focuses on the portrayals of American electoral
participation in the news, it would also be helpful to conduct comparative analyses of
how voters and voting are portrayed in the news. Future studies could track how news
media portray voters in other democratic countries, and examine if news coverage of
voters differ among countries with higher and lower levels of voter turnout. Studies could
also assess portrayals of voters in various types of democratic systems.
Third, research could also focus on how voters, the vote and the voting process
are portrayed in film, television, literature, song and other forms of popular culture. Are
voters portrayed more prominently? With greater detail? In which media? During which
historical periods? Answers to these questions can round out the findings of this content
analysis of print news coverage.
Additionally, future studies could track the coverage surrounding the 2008
presidential election. Will voters be treated in thin ways during this exciting election
year? Or, will the coverage more closely resemble the empowered narratives of the 1950s
and the 1960s? If voters are depicted with greater agency, will the attributes look like
158
those from the 1950s and the 1960s? Or will they be unique to this political moment?
Answers to these questions will help to set expectations for future campaigns and will
help inform how younger citizens’ political worlds will be shaped, now and into the
future.
CONCLUSION Americans have not been encouraged to think about their votes and their roles as
voters as central to democratic process through print news coverage. The “story” of
voting featured in the news has been one in which voters and their electoral participation
are sidelined. I believe that this major finding helps to explain the puzzle guiding this
project. Americans continue to be proud of their democracy—the larger structure that
makes democratic life possible. My data also lead me to suspect that Americans have also
become less mindful of their personal responsibility in safeguarding their system through
voting.
The news, here, is not all bad. This dissertation also shows that if citizens are
reminded of their role as voters in a print news article, several potentially exciting
patterns ensue. Adults express a higher likelihood of voting and of trusting the press;
college students report these positive outcomes and more.
These findings lead me to a normative statement: what Americans need now,
especially at the time of unstable voter turnout and political engagement, is more
democratic coverage of elections; stories that report on the experience, action and policy
preferences of candidates and the roles, responsibilities and political desires of voters. It
159
should be noted that this is not to suggest that news must return to an earlier era—for the
romantic sake of returning to a less cynical time—but to encourage news organizations to
re-insert voters into the center of democratic discussion.
Political elites often talk about the importance of voters and voting (as President
Bush did at the outset of this project). More holistic coverage of elections could remind
Jill Davidson (also mentioned at the outset of this project) of her role, as well.
160
References
Abramson, P. R. (1983). Political attitudes in America: formation and change. San
Francisco, CA: Freesman.
Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in
America. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 502-521.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy
in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org). The ANES guide to
public opinion and electoral behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,
Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor].
Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Zukin, C., & Keeter, S. (2003). Habits from home, lessons
from school: influences on youth civic engagement. Political Science& Politics,
36(2), 275-280.
Atkin, C. K., & Gantz, W. (1978). Television news and political socialization. Public
Opinion quarterly, 42, 183-197.
Barnhurst, K. G., & Mutz, D. (1997). American newspapers and the decline in event-
centered reporting, Journal of Communication, 47(4), 27-53.
Beck, P. A. (1977). The role of agents in political socialization. In S. A. Renshon (Ed.),
Handbook of political socialization: theory and research (pp.115-141). New
York, NY: Free Press.
161
Beck, P. A., & Jennings, M. K. (1975). Parents as ‘middlepersons’ in political
socialization. Journal of Politics, 37, 81-107.
Beck, P. A., & Jennings, M. K. (1982). Pathways to participation. American Political
Science Review, 76(1), 94-108.
Beekman, H. R. (1891). An act making voting compulsory, Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 1, 613.
Belli, R. F., Traugott, M. W., Young, M., & McGonagle, K. A. (1999). Reducing vote
over-reporting in surveys: Social desirability, memory failure, and source
monitoring. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 90-108.
Bennett, S. E. (2000). Political apathy and avoidance of news media among Generations
X and Y: America’s continuing problem. In S. Mann & J. J. Patrick (Eds.),
Education for civic engagement in democracy: Service learning and other
practices. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Science
Education.
Bennett, W. L. (1988/2001). News: The politics of illusion. New York, NY: Longman.
Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In W. L. Bennett (Ed),
Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 1-24).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berelson, B. (1971). Content analysis in communication research. New York, NY:
Hafner Publishing Company.
162
Brody, R. A. (1978). The puzzle of political participation in America. In Anthony King
(Ed.), The new American political system. Washington, DC: American Economic
Institute Press.
Brosius, H., & Hans Kepplinger, M. (1990). Agenda-setting function of television news.
Communication Research, 17(2), 183-211.
Buckingham, D. (1997). News media, political socialization and popular citizenship:
towards a new agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 344-366.
Buckingham, D. (1999). Young people, politics and news media: beyond political
socialisation. Oxford Review of Education, 25(1&2). 171-184.
Calavita, M. (2003). Within the context of many contexts: family, news media
engagement, and the ecology of individual political development among
‘Generation Xers’ Communication Review, 6(1), 23-43.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American
voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, Ill.: Row,
Peterson.
Cappella, J. B., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism, and media
cynicism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.
546, 71-84.
Cappella, J. B., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public
good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
163
Chaffee, S. H., Ward, L. S., & Tipton, L. (1970). Mass communication and political
socialization. Journalism Quarterly, 47, 647-659.
Chong, D., Citrin, J., & Conley, P. (2001). When self-interest matters, Political
Pscychology, 22(3), 541-570.
Chyi, H. I., & McCombs, M. E. (2004). Media salience and the process of framing:
coverage of the Columbine school shooting. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 22-35.
Cohen, B. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Conover, P. J., & Searing, D. D. (2000). A political socialization perspective. In L.
McDonnell, P. M. Timpane & R. W. Benjamin (Eds.), Rediscovering the
Democratic Purposes of Education, Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press.
Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A. Campbell & P. E.
Converse (Eds.), The Human Meaning of Social Change (pp. 263-337). New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Conway, M. M., & Damico, A. J. (2001). Building blocks: the relationship between high
school and adult associational life, a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.
Cook, T. E., Gronke, P., & Rattliff, J. (2000). Disdaining the media: The American
public’s changing attitudes toward the news. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
164
Cooper, A. (2001). Nominating presidential candidates: The primary season compared to
two alternatives, in Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 771-793.
Craig, S. C. (1979). Efficacy, trust, and political behavior: An attempt to resolve a
lingering conceptual dilemma, American Politics Quarterly, 7(2), 225-239.
Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. A. (1982). Measuring political efficacy, Political
Methodology, 8(3), 85-109.
Crespi, I. (1980). Polls as journalism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(4), 462-476.
Dahl, R. (1976). Modern political analysis. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Dahl, R. (1998). On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dalton, R. (2007). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American
politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Dawson, R. E., & Prewitt, K. (1969). Political socialization. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new
information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341-349.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why
it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dominick, J. (1972). Television and political socialization. Educational Broadcasting
Review, 6, 48-56.
Doppelt, J., & Shearer, E. (2001). America’s no-shows—nonvoters: who they are, why
they don’t vote and what it could take to bring them to the polls. Retrieved June
18, 2004, from
165
http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=732&content_type_id=8&issue_name=Yo
uth%20voting&issue=7&page=8&name=Grantee%20Reports
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
Drew, D., & Reese, S. (1984).Children’s learning from a television newscast. Journalism
Quarterly, 67(1), 83-88.
Easton, D., & Dennis, J. (1969). Children in the political system. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Eaton, H. Jr. (1989) Agenda-setting with bi-weekly data on content of three national
media. Journalism Quarterly 66, 942-948.
Egan, A. (2008, March 26). How Youth Rule An Election. Forbes.com. Retrieved May 4,
2008, from http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/03/25/campaign-young-staffers-election-oped-
cx_ae_0326egan.html
Fallows, J. (1997). Breaking the news. New York, NY: Vintage.
Feldman, K. A., & T. M. Newcomb. (1969). The impact of college on students: an
analysis of four decades of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: a panel
analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891-913.
Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Franklin, C. H. (1991). Efficient estimation in experiments. Political Methodologist, 4(1),
1-3.
Freeman, J. L., & Frazer, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195-202.
166
Gans, H. J. (2003). Democracy and the news. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and
direct mail on voter turnout: a field experiment. The American Political Science
Review, 94(3), 653-663.
Gerber, A. S., Green, P. D., & Shachar, R. (2003). Voting may be habit-forming:
evidence from randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political
Science, 47(3), 540-550.
Golan, G., & Wanta, W. (2001). Second-level agenda setting in the New Hampshire
primary: a comparison of coverage in three newspapers and public perceptions of
candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 247-59.
Goodwin-Gill, G. S. (2006). Free and fair elections. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Graber, D. (2000). Adapting political news to the needs of the twenty-first century
Americans. In L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics:
Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 433-452). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Greenstein, F. I. (1968). Political socialization. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International
encyclopedia of the social sciences. New York, NY: Macmillan and Free Press.
Gronke, P., & Cook, T. E. (2007). Disdaining the media: the American public’s changing
attitudes toward the news. Political Communication, 24(3), 259-281.
Hais, M., & Winograd, M. (2008, February 7). Millennials Are About to Give American
Politics an Extreme Makeove. The Huffington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hais-and-morley-winograd/millennials-are-about-to-_b_85556.html
167
Hart, R. P. (1999). Seducing America: how television charms the modern voter. Revised
edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hart, R. P. (2000). Campaign talk: why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Hart, R. P., Jarvis, S. E., Jennings, W. P., & Smith-Howell, D. (2005). Political
keywords: using language that uses us, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hart, R. P., Smith-Howell, D., & Llewellyn, J. (1991). The mindscape of the presidency:
Time magazine, 1945-1985, Journal of Communication, 41(3), 6-25.
Hess, R. D., & Torney, J. V. (1967). The development of political attitudes in children.
Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Hester, J. B., & Gibson, R. (2003). The economy and second-level agenda-setting: a
time-series analysis of economic news and public opinion about the economy.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 73-90.
Hoffman, J. (2008, April 8). Young Obama Backers Twist Parents’ Arms. The New York
Times. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/politics/08kids.html?ex=1208318400&en=b9601c284cd9e852&ei=5
070&emc=eta1
Hollander, N. (1971). Adolescents and the war: the sources of socialization. Journalism
Quarterly, 48, 472-479.
Hyman, H. (1959). Political socialization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
168
Iyengar, S. (1991) Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Jarvis, S. E. (2005). The talk of the party: political labels, symbolic capital, and
American life. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Jarvis, S. E., Montoya, L.M., & Mulvoy, E. (2005). The political participation of working
youth and college students. Working Paper. The Center for Information &
Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE). Retrieved June 2, 2008
from http://www.civicyouth.org/index.php?s=montoya
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Kam, C. D. (2007). When duty calls, do citizens answer? Journal of Politics, 69 (1), 17-
29.
Kernell, S. (1997). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership. Washington,
DC: CQ Press.
Key, V. O. (1966). The responsible electorate: rationality in presidential voting, 1936-
1960. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Kim, K., & McCombs, M. E. (2007). News story descriptions and the public’s opinions
of political candidates. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(2),
299-314.
169
Kim, S., Scheufele, D. A., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: attribute
agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 7-25.
Kinder, D. R., & D. R. Kiewiet. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: the
role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional
voting. American Journal of Political Science, 23(3), 495-527.
Kiousis, S. (2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the
information age. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 381-403.
Kiousis, S. (2002). Killing the messenger: an exploration of presidential newspaper
coverage and public confidence in the press, Journalism Studies, 3(4), 557-572.
Kiousis, S. (2003). Job approval and favorability: the impact of media attention to the
Monica Lewinsky scandal and public opinion of President Bill Clinton, Mass
Communication & Society, 6(4), 435-51.
Kiousis, S., Bantimaroudis, P., & Ban, H. (1999). Candidate image attributes:
experiments on the substantive dimension of second level agenda-setting.
Communication Research, 26(4), 414-428.
Kornberg, A., & Clarke, H. D. (1992). Citizens and community. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Krippendorff, K. A. (1980). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lane, R. (1959). Political life: why people get involved in politics. Glencoe, IL: The Free
Press.
170
Lawrence, R. G. (2000). Game-framing the issues: tracking the strategy frame in public
policy news, Political Communication, 17, 93-114.
Leighley, J. E. (1995). Attitudes, opportunities and incentives: a field essay on political
participation. Political Research Quarterly, 48(1), 181-209.
Leighley, J. E. (2001). Strength in numbers? The political mobilization of racial and
ethnic minorities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Levine, P. (2007). The future of democracy: Developing the next generation of American
citizens. Hanover, NH: Tufts University Press.
Lipset, S. M. (1963). Political man. New York, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Litt, E. (1963). Civic education, community norms and political indoctrination. American
Sociological Review, 28, 69-75.
Lopez, M. H., Kirby, E., & Sagoff, J. (2005). The Youth Vote 2004. The Center for
Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE). Retrieved
July 11, 2008, from http://www.civicyouth.org/quick/youth_voting.htm
Lopez, M. H., Levine, P., Both, D., Kiesa, A., Kirby, E., & Marcelo, K. (2006). The 2006
civic and political health of the nation: A detailed look at how youth participate in
politics and communities. The Center for Information & Research on Civic
Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE). Retrieved July 11, 2008, from
http://www.civicyouth.org/research/products/youth_index.htm
Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political
Science, 31, 856-899.
171
Macedo, S., Alex-Assensoh, Y. M., Berry, J. M., Brintnall, M., Campbell, D. E., Fraga,
L. R., Fung, A., Galston, W. A., Karpowitz, C. F., Levi, M., Levinson, M., &
Lipsitz, K. (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen
participation, and what we can do about it. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
MacManus, S. A. (1996). Young v. Old: Generational combat in the 21st century.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Maisel, L. S., & Buckley, K. Z. (2004). Parties and elections in America: the electoral
process. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, R. W., & Mackuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and
political judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new-voter learning via three
channels of political information. Journalism & Mass Communication, 72, 18-44.
Mayo, H. B. (1959). A note on the alleged duty to vote. The Journal of Politics, 21(2),
319-323.
McCombs, M. E. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion.
Malden, MA: Polity Press.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
McCombs, M. E., Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Lennon, F. R. (1997). Candidate
images in Spanish elections: second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism and
Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 703-16.
172
McCombs, M. E., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Llamas, J. P. (2000). Setting the agenda of
attributes in the 1996 Spanish general election, Journal of Communication, 77-92.
McDonald, M. P., & Popkin, S. L. (2001). The myth of the vanishing voter. American
Political Science Review, 95(4), 963-974.
McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary
approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.
Merelman, R. M. (1980). The family and political socialization: toward a theory of
exchange. Journal of Politics, 42(2), 461-486.
Meyer, P. (2002). Precision Journalism (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Miller, W. E., & Shanks, J. M. (1996). The new American voter. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Mindich, D. T. Z. (2005). Tuned Out: Why Americans under 40 don’t follow the news.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Moy, P., & M. Pfau. (2001). With malice toward all. Westport, CT: Praeger.
National Association of Secretaries of State. (1999). New millennium survey: American
youth attitudes on politics, citizenship, government & voting. Retrieved June 18,
2004 from www.stateofthevote.org/survey
Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties
conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-
84.
173
Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in
America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1976). The changing American voter.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
O’Donnell, G. (2007). The perpetual crises of democracy. Journal of Democracy,18, 5-9.
Paletz, D. L., Short, J. Y., Baker, H., Campbell, B. C., Cooper, R. J., & Oeslander, R. M.
(1980). Polls in the media: content, credibility, and consequences. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 44(4), 495-513.
Parker, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1997). Socialization in the family: ethnic and ecological
perspectives. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology, 3, New York, NY: Wiley, 463-52.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Patterson, T. E. (2002). The vanishing voter: public involvement in an age of uncertainty.
New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Patterson, T. (2007). Young people and news. The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press,
Politics and Public Policy. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/research_publications/papers.htm
Peiser, W. (2000). Cohort replacement and the downward trend in newspaper readership.
Newspaper Research Journal, 21(2), 11-22.
174
Pew Research Center For the People & the Press. (1992). Campaign ’92: Generation
divide. Washington, DC.
Pew Research Center For the People & the Press. (2007). How young people view their
lives, futures and politics: A portrait of “Generation Next.” Washington: DC.
Polsby, N. W. (1983). Consequences of Party Reform. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Pomper, G. M. (1968). Elections in America. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Popkin, S. D. (1991). The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in
presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Presser, M. (2008, February 26). Youth Vote Surge in Austin and Across the Country.
The Austin American Statesman, Retrieved May 4, 2008, from
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/02/26/0226youngvote.html
Price, V., & Zaller, J. R. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news
reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133-
164. .
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Rahn, W. M., & Transue, J. E. (1998). Social trust and value change: the decline of social
capital in American youth, 1976-1995. Political Psychology, 19(3), 545-565.
Riker, W., & Ordeshook, P. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American
Political Science Review, 62, 25-43.
175
Rimmer, T., & Weaver, D. (1987). Different questions, different answers? Media use and
media credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 28-36.
Roberts, M., & McCombs, M. (1994). “Agenda setting and political advertising: origins
of the news agenda,” Political Communication, 11, 249-262.
Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of agenda-setting
research. Journal of Communication, 43, 68-84.
Rosenstone, R. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in
America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Rubin, A. (1976). Television in children’s political socialization. Journal of
Broadcasting, 20, 51-59.
Sax, L. J., Astin, A., Korn, W., & Mahoney, K. (1997). The American freshman national
norms for fall 1997. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.
Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizens: a history of American civic life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Sears, D. O. (1975). Political socialization. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.),
Handbook of Political Science, 2, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data
base on psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 515-530.
Sears, D. O., & Valentino, N. A. (1997). Politics matters: political events as catalysts for
preadult socialization. American Political Science Review, 91, 45-62.
176
Sherr, S., & Staples, M. (2004). News for a new generation report 1: Content analysis,
interviews, and focus groups. The Center for Information & Research on Civic
Learning & Engagement.
Sigel, R. S. (1965). Assumptions about the learning of political values, Annals of the
American Academy of Social and Political Science, 361, 165, 1-9.
Smith, K. (1987). Newspaper coverage and public concern about community issues,
Journalism Monographs, 101.
Smith, T. W., & Kim, S. (2006). National pride in cross-national and temporal
perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 127-136.
Soroka, S. N, (2001) Media, public opinion, and foreign policy, paper presented to the
American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
Steele, J. E. (1995). Experts and the operational bias of television news: the case of the
Persian Gulf war, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 799-812.
Sullivan, J. L., & Riedel, E. (2001). Efficacy: Political. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of social & behavioral sciences (pp. 4353-
4356). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Takeshita, T. (1993) ‘Agenda-setting effects of the press in a Japanese local election.’
Studies of Broadcasting, 29, 193-216.
Teixeira, R. A. (1987). Why Americans don’t vote. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Teixeira, R. A. (1992). The disappearing American voter. Washington, DC: the
Brookings Institution.
177
Thompson, D. (1970). The democratic citizen. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Tsfati, Y., & Peri, Y. (2006). Mainstream media skepticism and exposure to sectorial and
extranational news media: the case of Israel. Mass Communication & Society,
9(2), 165-187.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Voting and registration in the election of November 2000.
Retrieved May 14, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf
Valentino, N. A., Beckmann, M. N., & Buhr, T. A. (2001). A spiral of cynicism for
some: the contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and
confidence in government. Political Communication, 18, 347-367.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: political democracy and social
equality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: civic
voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wattenberg, M. P. (1998). The decline of American political parties, 1952-1996.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wattenberg, M. P. (2002). Where have all the voters gone? Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Weaver, D. H (1996). What voters learn from media, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 546, 34-37.
178
Weaver, D. H., Graber, D. A., McCombs, M. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). Media agenda-
setting in a presidential election: Issues, images and interest. New York, NY:
Praeger.
Why Young Voters Care Again: And why their vote matters. (2008, February 11). Time
Magazine, cover page.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). Mass media research and introduction. 4th ed.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Winter, J. P., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). Agenda-setting for the civil rights issue. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 45, 376-383.
Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Community service and political identity development
in adolescence. The Journal of Social Issues 54(3), 495-512.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Zukin, C. (1997). Generation X and the news. Washington, DC: Radio and Television
News Directors Foundation.
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolia, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new
engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American
citizen. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
179
Vita
Soo-Hye Han was born in Gifu, Japan as the daughter of Jong-Hak Han and
Young-Ja Lee. After completing her work at Aichi Korean High School in Nagoya,
Japan, she attended and earned degrees from Kyoto University of Foreign Studies (B.A.)
and the University of Pittsburgh (M.P.I.A.). In 2001 she entered the Graduate School of
the University of Texas at Austin. During this time, she taught and assisted various
courses in the Department of Communication Studies and the Department of Asian
Studies and worked as a research assistant at the Annette Strauss Institute for Civic
Participation.
Permanent address: 2021 Kitagomizuka, Kusu-cho, Yokkaichi-shi, Mie 510-0103 Japan
This dissertation was typed by the author.