No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Young Voter Perceptions of Political Satire as Persuasion: A Focus on Perceived Influence, Persuasive Intent, and Message Strength
Abstract
This study focuses on the perceived effectiveness of political satire. A pair of experimental studies using original satirical works offer findings for audience perceptions regarding two types of satire, juvenalian and horatian, compared to traditional opinion-editorial argumentation. The two studies produced replicable findings that indicate clear perceptions of persuasive intent associated with both types of satire, and horatian satire ranking lower than traditional opinion-editorials in perceived message strength and perceived influence on self.
... Several additional articles were added through spot-checking (e.g. Cheng & Wang, 2015;Cline & Kellaris, 1999;Fraustino & Ma, 2015;Holbert et al., 2013). Because the literature search for the meta-analysis by Walter and colleagues terminated in 2016, an additional search for empirical humor research published pursuant to 2016 was conducted. ...
... (1) 'I Totally Disagree' to (7) 'I Totally Agree''; The ad is funny: (1) 'I Totally Disagree' to (7) 'I Totally Agree' Gruner and Lampton (1972) 1 (1) 'Extremely Humorous' to (7) 'Extremely Serious' Gruner (1970) 1 ( −3) 'Serious' to (+3) 'Humorous' Hendriks and Janssen (2018) 1 Ifind the ad humorous: (1) 'Most certainly not' to (7) 'Most certainly'; I think the ad is funny: (1) 'Most certainly not' to (7) 'Most certainly' Hendriks and Janssen (2018) 2 (1) 'Not humorous' to (7) 'Humorous'; (1) 'Not funny' to (7) 'Funny'; (1) 'Not playful' to (7) 'Playful'; (1) 'Not amusing' to (7) 'Amusing'; (1) 'Not dull' to (7) 'Dull' (reverse coded) Hendriks and Strick (2020) 1 This advertisement was funny, Scale N/A; This advertisement was humorous, Scale N/A; This advertisement was amusing, Scale N/A Holbert et al. (2011) 1 (1) 'Not funny' to (7) 'Funny'; (1) 'Not amusing' to (7) 'Amusing'; (1) 'Not entertaining' (7) 'Entertaining'; (1) 'Not humorous' to (7) 'Humorous ' Holbert et al. (2013) 1 (1) 'Not funny' to (7) 'Funny'; (1) 'Not amusing' to (7) 'Amusing'; (1) 'Not entertaining' to (7) 'Entertaining'; •(1) 'Not humorous' to (7) 'Humorous ' Holbert et al. (2013) 2 (1) 'Not funny' to (7) 'Funny'; (1) 'Not amusing' to (7) 'Amusing'; (1) 'Not entertaining' to (7) 'Entertaining'; (1) 'Not humorous' to (7) 'Humorous' ...
... (1) 'I Totally Disagree' to (7) 'I Totally Agree''; The ad is funny: (1) 'I Totally Disagree' to (7) 'I Totally Agree' Gruner and Lampton (1972) 1 (1) 'Extremely Humorous' to (7) 'Extremely Serious' Gruner (1970) 1 ( −3) 'Serious' to (+3) 'Humorous' Hendriks and Janssen (2018) 1 Ifind the ad humorous: (1) 'Most certainly not' to (7) 'Most certainly'; I think the ad is funny: (1) 'Most certainly not' to (7) 'Most certainly' Hendriks and Janssen (2018) 2 (1) 'Not humorous' to (7) 'Humorous'; (1) 'Not funny' to (7) 'Funny'; (1) 'Not playful' to (7) 'Playful'; (1) 'Not amusing' to (7) 'Amusing'; (1) 'Not dull' to (7) 'Dull' (reverse coded) Hendriks and Strick (2020) 1 This advertisement was funny, Scale N/A; This advertisement was humorous, Scale N/A; This advertisement was amusing, Scale N/A Holbert et al. (2011) 1 (1) 'Not funny' to (7) 'Funny'; (1) 'Not amusing' to (7) 'Amusing'; (1) 'Not entertaining' (7) 'Entertaining'; (1) 'Not humorous' to (7) 'Humorous ' Holbert et al. (2013) 1 (1) 'Not funny' to (7) 'Funny'; (1) 'Not amusing' to (7) 'Amusing'; (1) 'Not entertaining' to (7) 'Entertaining'; •(1) 'Not humorous' to (7) 'Humorous ' Holbert et al. (2013) 2 (1) 'Not funny' to (7) 'Funny'; (1) 'Not amusing' to (7) 'Amusing'; (1) 'Not entertaining' to (7) 'Entertaining'; (1) 'Not humorous' to (7) 'Humorous' ...
After decades of study, much of what comprises ‘funny’ content remains subjective. A meta-analysis of 80 experimental humor manipulations sought to identify what makes a stimulus funny by focusing on its content, audience, and research design. Results suggest that content which draws upon theoretically grounded techniques like surprise, tension relief, and superiority leads to stronger effects on perceived humor. Study design features such as the message modality and scale type also significantly influence perceptions of humor. This evidence suggests that methodology plays a key role in explaining the variance in perceived humor. The process of conducting this synthesis revealed the need for more widespread stimuli testing to confirm whether messages designed to elicit humor are indeed interpreted as such.
... Not all viewers were receptive to the message, however, and farming communities in particular expressed outrage at Chipotle's vicious depiction of the industry. Outspoken members of the ag community accused Chipotle of using farmers as a punching bag to sell burritos, and news outlets covered Chipotle's controversial approach and the self-inflicted public relations challenge the company faced through its critique of and disassociation from industrial agriculture (Barrett, 2014;Doering, 2014). ...
... It is interesting to note Chipotle's use of humor and satire within the Farmed and Dangerous series to convey its critical messages toward practices in the agriculture industry, as the inherent ambiguity and lightness of tone of satire allows the company to make negative claims about "big agriculture" without ever needing to be overly specific or forced to substantiate its criticisms of the industry. In a 2014 USA Today article following the launch of the series, Chipotle's director of communications Chris Arnold is quoted describing the comedy series as an "effective tool" to engage and educate consumers who aren't paying attention to issues in the food industry, predicting that the brand's strategy of helping people to "understand food and where it comes from" would pay dividends for the company (Doering, 2014). Reflecting the findings of this research, however, the same article also discusses multiple farmers and agriculture groups upset that the Farmed and Dangerous series portrayed an "unrealistic picture" of farming -and quotes an Iowa farmer as objecting "to Chipotle's bullying tactics 'that pick on someone and knock them down' to stoke demand for their products" (Doering, 2014). ...
... In a 2014 USA Today article following the launch of the series, Chipotle's director of communications Chris Arnold is quoted describing the comedy series as an "effective tool" to engage and educate consumers who aren't paying attention to issues in the food industry, predicting that the brand's strategy of helping people to "understand food and where it comes from" would pay dividends for the company (Doering, 2014). Reflecting the findings of this research, however, the same article also discusses multiple farmers and agriculture groups upset that the Farmed and Dangerous series portrayed an "unrealistic picture" of farming -and quotes an Iowa farmer as objecting "to Chipotle's bullying tactics 'that pick on someone and knock them down' to stoke demand for their products" (Doering, 2014). Another farmer in the article accused Chipotle of "using fear and twisting the truth," as part of its marketing and advertising strategy, a perspective shared by several participants in this study. ...
... Though they recognize persuasive intent and acknowledge that the attitudes and beliefs of others may be affected, comedy viewers feel personally immune from influence and perceive comic messages to be weaker than more traditional editorial arguments (Becker, Xenos & Waisanen, 2010;Holbert et al., 2013). Nabi and colleagues (2007) find that experimental exposure to humorous social issue messages enhanced attention and decreased counterargument but also increased message discounting so that messages had little initial persuasive effect. ...
... Previous research indicates that patterns of cognitive processing depend on the complexity of humorous messages. Studies examining this moderating factor find that complexity and audience ability have an interactive effect on enjoyment, perceived argument strength and argument scrutiny, but are inconsistently related to learning, persuasion and other outcome variable of interest (Holbert et al., 2011(Holbert et al., , 2013Polk et al., 2009). Modeling the relationship between audience ability and effects in non-linear form would likely produce more a more consistent pattern of results. ...
... By many accounts, comedy tends to have liberal leanings, and results of the current study indicate a persuasive effect, with increased ideological constraint stemming from more liberal tendencies among comedy viewers. Previous persuasion research has focused almost exclusively on discrete policy issue attitudes and assessed effects on the basis of researchers' own, possibly incorrect, interpretations of humorous messages and assumptions about how specific attitudes should be affected (e.g.Holbert et al., 2011Holbert et al., , 2013Nabi et al., 2007;Polk et al., 2009).However, pre-existing attitudes about the high profile political issues examined in these studies (e.g. healthcare reform, the Iraq war and gun control) are likely to be relatively strong and resistant to change. ...
The importance of comedy as a mode of political communication is widely recognized, and the correlation between exposure to political comedy and knowledge has been well documented. Still, empirical research has produced decidedly mixed conclusions about whether, how and for whom political comedy might promote learning and influence attitudes. This dissertation incorporates socio-psychological theories of humor into a model of humor-triggered cognition which produces theoretically derived expectations about the effect of comedy on political sophistication. Political comedy is not merely an alternative news source but a unique communicative form which, by encouraging effortful processing and cognitive engagement, enhances learning and attitude constraint. Further, the strongest effects are predicted not among apathetic citizens incidentally exposed to information, but among moderately sophisticated audiences capable of comprehending and appreciating humorous messages but generally unmotivated to think deeply about politics absent the potential emotional gratification of amusement.
These expectations are empirically tested using both experimental and survey methodologies. A controlled experiment isolates the effect of comedy from the influence of exposure to information by manipulating the presence of humor in political news stories but otherwise holding content constant. Consistent with the model of humor-triggered cognition, experimental results demonstrate that political comedy promotes learning and ideological constraint beyond exposure to identical information in hard news form, and its relative influence is greatest among those with moderate prior political knowledge. Learning is mediated by the experience of amusement, not perceptions that the (identical) information is more interesting. Secondary survey data are used to replicate experimental analysis and examine the relationship between real-world exposure to political comedy and the structure of political attitudes. Self-reported exposure to political comedy is strongly correlated with several alternative measures of ideological constraint, suggesting that experimental findings are generalizable.
Overall, results indicate that effects of political media depend on the way information is presented. Political comedy enhances sophistication by not only providing important political information but also by arousing and engaging audiences so that they think more deeply about politics, become more ideologically consistent, and are potentially more capable of effective democratic citizenship.
... Anxiety surrounding political issues prompts interest and increased attention to news through amplified emotional engagement, and scholars have uncovered political entertainment models as a means to maintain political relevance in the present media environment (Lee & Kwak, 2014;Esralew & Young, 2012). Traditionally separate entities, politics and humor have converged in late-night talk shows and sketch comedies to reach young viewers while employing relatively high levels of awareness and engagement in politics (Baumgartner et al., 2012;Holbert et al., 2013). Unlike journalism and news media restraints centered on critique and analysis, political entertainment shows such as Saturday Night Live (SNL) mimic real-world events and figures, theoretically influencing public opinion on politics and the political information environment (Abel & Barther, 2013). ...
The convergence of politics and comedy within political entertainment has created a new environment, dissemination of information, and formation of public opinion. In response to white nationalist rallies, comedian Tina Fey utilized her political comedy platform to satirically comment on the inaction of several privileged consumers. Community response to the satirical skit reflected the complexity of satire as rhetorical strategy, notably when present online and within popular culture discourse, and the cognitive demands that result in fallacious tendencies. The following examines the fallacies that arise in response to Fey's satirical message and the implications for political entertainment media.
... Gring-Pemble & Watson, 2003], such as climate change. In fact, research has provided evidence that satirical messaging can lead to changes in attitude and behaviour [Holbert, Tchernev, Walther, Esralew & Benski, 2013] and that the use of satirical appeals led to increased acceptance of climate change, increased perceptions of risk and an increase in intentional behaviours and positive attitudes to mitigate climate change [Skurka et al., 2019;Skurka et al., 2018]. The use of satire to expose a position might be unpredictable, as satire can both encourage audience acceptance of ideas and connection between like-minded people, as well as encourage the denigration of the same ideas and create contrast and demarcation between groups or individuals [see Gring-Pemble & Watson, 2003, p. 133, p. 137]. ...
Protest placards are an important part of School Strike 4 Climate (SS4C) protest culture and illustrate how protesters view, understand and share their environmental concerns. Many of the placards use humor to convey the messages of their creators. Bringing together science communication and humor studies, this paper examines the communicative functions of humor in Australian SS4C posters by asking to what extent protest signs can be understood as a vehicle of science communication. The paper reveals how humorous protest placards become the means of grassroots creativity, exploring bottom-up science communication in an ambiguous, but accessible and enjoyable form.
... Satire derives from the Latin term satura, meaning "a mixed dish" (Holbert, Tchernev, Walther, Esralew, & Benski, 2013;LeBoeuf, 2007, p. 2). According to Test (1991), it is "a legitimate aesthetic expression of basic human emotions-anger, shame, indignation, disgust, contempt-emotions that are aroused by universal human behaviors-stupidity, agreed, injustice, selfishness" (p. ...
Political satire is employed by writers to voice their own opinions, using irony, sarcasm and allusions to criticize social, economic or political issues, or to indicate mockery of salient figures, especially politicians. In this respect, this paper will analyze a literary work by Ῑhāb Ṭāhir, entitled Mursī qalb al-asad 'Mursī, the lion's heart' (2013), issued two years after the 25 th January Revolution. Ṭāhir, through his satirical and political parody, attempts to find an emotional vent, for the ordinary people of Egypt, through which they could get rid, even if temporarily, of their recurrent encumbrances and burdens of life, enabling them to restore their stolen democracy, freedom of expression, and liberty by the rigid regime of Mursī, the former president of Egypt, and his party, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Depending greatly on Paul Simpson's (2003) theoretical model of satirical discourse analysis, this paper attempts to propose a Pentadic Satirical Script Theory of Verbal Humor (PSSTVH). By employing this proposed theory, Ṭāhir's style of writing, through which his satirical activity is delivered, and his satirical techniques, adopted to convey his message efficiently, will be investigated.
... Satire derives from the Latin term satura, meaning "a mixed dish" (Holbert, Tchernev, Walther, Esralew, & Benski, 2013;LeBoeuf, 2007, p. 2). According to Test (1991), it is "a legitimate aesthetic expression of basic human emotions-anger, shame, indignation, disgust, contempt-emotions that are aroused by universal human behaviors-stupidity, agreed, injustice, selfishness" (p. ...
... Lim and Golan (2011) do find that political parodies may trigger greater influence on others rather than on oneself. However, in this current research, in line with previous research on political humor (Holbert et al., 2013), we focus on perceived influence on self as citizens' self-attitude toward a politician is a strong predictor on voting intention and decision (von Sikorski & Herbst, 2020). ...
Political parody, which is entitled to free speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, aims at criticizing politicians' policies and ideas with humor. As such, political parodies represent a serious threat to a politician's brand image and reputation. Despite their prevalence in political life and debates, the relative persuasive effects of political parodies based on their communication source (user‐generated parody [UGP] vs. media‐generated parody [MGP]) have been underexplored. To fill this gap, we developed two studies. The first study involved content analysis of more than 330 parody videos posted on YouTube between 2012 and April 2019 in France. Our findings, in Study 1, showed that MGP led to fewer likes and a more negative attitude toward the parody than UGP. The second study, based on controlled experiment, provided evidence through mediation; compared to UGP, MGP led to more negative attitudes toward the parody and less perceived influence of the parody because of a higher perception of the source's intention to manipulate. This mediating effect was significant only when individuals were highly skeptical of traditional media. These findings add to current theories of political parody, free speech and user‐generated content and offer actionable insights to practitioners.
... To investigate intra-genre differences in satirical news through the use of discursive modes, we first need to identify satire's rhetorical functions. Although satirical news is a form of political humor (Young, 2014), scholars have struggled to precisely define this hybrid genre (Baym, 2005;Holbert, Tchernev, Walther, Esralew, & Benski, 2013). Scholars do agree that, overall, satirical news has three core rhetorical functions: (a) being humorous, (b) educating and informing the audience, and (c) criticizing structures of power (Baym, 2005). ...
An important challenge for communication scientists is to characterize and understand hybrid genres. Satirical news is such a hybrid genre and comprises a blend of the genres of comedy, news, and political opinion. This theoretical article aims to contribute to this discussion by further specifying the concept of discursive mode. Discursive modes designate certain communicative orientations toward a particular genre element. We make our argument concrete by introducing a typology of metaphorical humor in satirical news. Our humoristic metaphors in satirical news (HMSN) typology, demonstrates that satirists can realize and switch between 4 different discursive modes through metaphors. These discursive modes comprise different combinations of core rhetorical functions in satirical news (humor, education, and evaluation). We describe each type of metaphor in our typology and present a research agenda identifying key issues that require future research and empirical verification.
... 23 Research demonstrated that especially the juvenalian types of satire are less likely to be counterargued and, therefore, have a stronger persuasive effect. 24 Recognizing that political satire may come in different forms, the current study examines the impact of another dimension on which satire clips can be distinguished: the nature of attack. ...
... Nonetheless, studies by Rill and Cardiel (2013) and Lee and Kwak (2014) urge caution when making claims about the quality of these interactions. Holbert et al. (2013) suggest that "it is clear that young voters do not envision political satire to be news" (p. 173). ...
A chapter focusing on online political communication on Facebook, based on the case study of the Hungarian Two-tailed Dog Party. From "Discourses of (De)Legitimization
Participatory Culture in Digital Contexts", edited by Andrew S. Ross and Damian J. Rivers (Routledge).
... Here again, most of the scholarship focuses on youth. Various studies examine the "perceptions of bias" in political humor (Arpan et al., 2011), perceptions of persuasive intent in satire (Holbert et al., 2013), gratification in viewing political humor (Young, 2013) as opposed to news programming (Holbert et al., 2007), and how viewing political humor may influence selective exposure to news stories (Stroud and Muddiman, 2013). ...
Objective
The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between viewing late night political humor and political participation.
Methods
We used various measures of viewership of late night talk shows and political participation in the 2012 American National Election Studies (ANES) data set.
Results
We show that viewership of “Late Night with David Letterman,” a simple form of political comedy, seems to be unrelated to political participation. However, viewership of Comedy Central's “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report,” considered by most to be genuine political satire, is associated with higher levels of political participation.
Conclusion
The results suggest that advocates of political satire may be correct when they suggest that satire mobilizes viewers to political action.
... Research has examined the role of biased message processing in how viewers understand and interpret intended meaning of ambiguous political satire entertainment content, with findings suggesting that an individual's political ideology can influence the nature of biased processing (LaMarre, Landreville, & Beam, 2009). Other research has examined the nature of different types of satirical content and its effectiveness as a tool for political persuasion (Holbert, Tchernev, Walther, Esralew, & Benski 2013). Unique persuasive effects and the cognitive nature of how satire is processed have been the focus of recent studies (LaMarre, Landreville, Young, & Gilkerson, 2014;Lee & Kwak, 2014). ...
... Despite the time lapse between the survey and the interviews, the importance of the programme and the number of viewers was maintained throughout this period. of the audience comparison and based on other comparable studies, this time lapse can be viewed as acceptable (Holbert et al., 2013). In the random survey were not treated complex concepts as participation that could be confusing in a street fast encounter, in order to avoid questions that could imply the intervention of the people who interviewed. ...
This study addresses the effectiveness of television satire in reflecting political life. It looks at the subject in a new way: the general public and those involved in politics have different perceptions about the ability of a Polònia parody to produce both emotional feelings and changes of opinion. Three methodological tools (a random survey, a focus group and interviews) were used to obtain data. It was concluded that those involved with politics feel that the programme's portrayal of political life is accurate. However, members of the general public do not feel that it increases their interest in politics or that it can provoke a change in their opinion.
... In general, viewers find political comedy programs persuasive in nature (Becker, Xenos, & Waisanen 2010;Hoffman, 2013;Holbert, Tchernev, Walther, Esralew, & Benski, 2013). Some persuasiveness is likely located in Biden losing a first persona; that is, he has lost some control of his speech and behaviors while media representations further pronounce his inadvertent actions on multiple fronts. ...
This project examined comedic representations of US Vice President Joe Biden to analyze persona rhetoric in a media environment filled with circulating personae, or the many roles both created by and attributed to such figures. While sometimes supportive of the politician's intended roles, we found that circulating personae can disrupt the first persona, complicate the invitations and control exerted over the second persona, propel strategic and non-strategic authorships deflecting or silencing a third persona, and provide an undertow of multiple meanings supplementing a fourth persona. Several implications are drawn, including how circulating personae may neuter roles important to political rhetoric and public culture.
... 121-122). Although a number of recent studies have focused on the impact of satire and irony on persuasion from a cognitive standpoint (Holbert et al, 2013; Polk, Young, & Holbert, 2009; Nabi, Moyer-Gusé, & Byrne, 2007), these studies tend to focus primarily on how humor detracts from an audience's ability or desire to process arguments effectively. While irony is a central component to games like Unmanned, humor is often absent. ...
Just as rhetorical arguments can be embedded within the structure of a game's logic, so too can heuristic cues. In this paper, I argue for persuasive game design based upon using the technological affordances of videogames as a medium to trigger specific heuristic cues, thereby allowing game designers to create games that are able to evoke the necessary amount of systematic cognitive processing to promote long-term attitude change among players of the game. This approach is based upon the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) of cognition, as well as the MAIN (Modality, Agency, Interactivity, and Navigability) model of technological effects.
... 94 While political comedy viewers primarily describe programs like The Daily Show as entertaining rather than informative, audience members still suggest that the programs are both persuasive and partisan in orientation. 95 A study by Becker, Xenos, and Waisanen offered evidence of a significant perceived third person effect for political comedy (as opposed to straight news) and research by Coe et al. suggests that both conservative and liberal viewers feel there is more bias inherent in The Daily Show than across a range of cable news options (e.g., Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc.). 96 Scholars have shown that both viewers and journalists alike find Stewart to be left-leaning, 97 and a content analysis by Morris suggests that TDS coverage of the 2004 election emphasized policy and character flaws when covering Republicans but was kinder toward Democrats, focusing instead on physical characteristics considered to be more trivial. ...
This article offers points of intersection and difference across communication research on political comedy. Based on our findings, we argue that political comedy scholarship can be usefully divided into two areas: (1) features and (2) effects. Under features, we find three overlapping but distinct areas of emphasis: political comedy's rhetorical devices and conventions, its ideological and ethical functions, and its contributions to public culture. Under effects, we construct another four areas, including knowledge and learning, attitudes and opinion, cynicism and engagement, and processing, understanding, and affinity. The essay provides an overview of studies on political comedy's features and effects, before concluding with five pathways that can bridge these divides and bring conceptual clarity to future research.
It has been established that narrative entertainment messages have the power to produce persuasive outcomes in audiences, but the specific message components that influence audience responses are not well understood. The current study uses focus groups to explore audience interpretations of meaning, perceptions of persuasive intent, and perceptions of the source of a persuasive message in response to a satirical narrative with an environmental theme. The results indicated that audiences define persuasive intent much more narrowly than researchers. Audiences also inferred meaning based on which characters espoused certain messages, but struggled to form conceptions of the creators behind the show or discern an overall persuasive intent. Furthermore, humor acted both as a factor in enjoyment of the narrative and as a discounting cue.
Despite a great deal of research, much about the effects of political comedy programming on its viewers remains uncertain. One promising line of work has focused on increased internal political efficacy—the sense that one is competent to engage with politics—as an outcome of exposure to political comedy programs. This may explain results showing that viewers are more likely to participate in politics. We extend this approach by considering the role of political comedy’s “gateway” effect in encouraging political media consumption, which can promote additional increases in efficacy and participation. This study provides a theoretical synthesis of prior research and a rigorous empirical test using a representative panel survey of adults in the United States, providing evidence of a relationship between political comedy and participation with both news use and internal efficacy serving as mediators. Furthermore, we find that only political satire, not late-night talk shows, appear to produce these effects.
This paper presents a first systematic analysis and conceptualization of local comic responses to global events, as articulated by internet users. We probed the multifaceted interactions between the global-local and entertaining-disruptive dimensions of contemporary satire through a cross-linguistic analysis of reactions to Donald Trumps’ election. Using a combination of qualitative methods, we analyzed humorous messages in Arabic, Chinese, English, German, and Spanish (n = 321) on Twitter and Weibo during November 2016. We found that globally shared themes are mainly apolitical and entertaining, while glocal responses align with three ideal types, which we term inbound, transitional, and outbound satire. Each type of satire featured a distinct combination of protagonists, targets and humor mechanisms. In conclusion, we discuss how cross-national satire on social media problematizes the (already murky) distinction between entertaining and disruptive satire, why satire is uniquely equipped to domesticate global affairs through estrangement, and how our typology may be linked to bilateral relations between countries in the contemporary international arena.
For years, Dave Chappelle has maintained that the reason he walked away from his eponymous show, and a $50 million dollar contract, was his realization that people were laughing at him, not with him. This study uses online survey data (N = 156) with an embedded media manipulation to quantitatively examine whether or not viewers accurately perceived the persuasive intent of Chappelle’s brand of racial satire and, subsequently, whether or not viewers perceived Chappelle’s statements about race as serious. The data offer empirical support for Chappelle’s concerns, suggesting viewers’ who held more stereotypical perceptions of African Americans were less likely to perceive Chappelle’s critique of racism as serious. These results reinforce the double-edged nature of racial satire.
The following study investigates how to develop and maintain a satire column within a university newspaper in order to increase news-related engagement within a student body. The changes within the media are growing exponentially and the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) student who developed “The Hoof” saw the need for satirical content created by students, for students. The column’s focus was to create and publish entertaining and informative articles concerning Cal Poly-related issues. With scholarly research, the intent of the column aims to mimic the style of well-known satirists and follow the principles of public journalism, in an effort to captivate college students. This paper addresses the need for public journalism’s values to be administered through current satirical mediums in order to support the general public. The importance of localizing humor within a satire column is addressed, and explained are the issues that may arise with a lack of public understanding of satire’s form and the generational divide of news. There is a focus on properly educating the student body on the column’s mission to effectively entertain its readers.
Conventional definitions of corporate hypocrisy focus on decoupling talk and action; incidences where an organization's ‘talk’ does not match its ‘walk’. However, in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR), marketing communications are often aspirational and hence prone to accusations of hypocrisy. We therefore ask: is hypocrisy always undesirable? This case-informed conceptual paper draws upon the Diesel ‘Global Warming Ready’ campaign to investigate how humor – specifically irony – elevates conventional understandings of hypocrisy towards what we term ‘helpful hypocrisy’; the mobilization of critical reflection on complex ambiguities of CSR in non-moralizing ways. In doing so, we distinguish between idealized ‘single-talk’ and extended ‘double-talk’. We develop an analytical model to help analyze the layers of double-talk in the context of ironic CSR marketing communications, and we construct a conceptual model that explains the role of double-talk and irony. Based on our research, we propose an agenda for future research.
Satire represents a form of public discourse that invites critical judgment of some sociopolitical folly, absurdity, or contradiction. Through devices like exaggeration, irony, and imitation, a satirical text aspires to cut through spin, deception, and misrepresentation in order to spotlight a given state of affairs as they are or could be. That is, satire is propelled by an impulse to elucidate; to highlight some truth. In many respects, journalism’s normative aspirations are similar to that of satire. Journalism’s guiding principles are commonly discussed in light of a central mission to seek and report the best obtainable version of the truth. Though satirical and journalistic endeavors are often carried out with contrasting tones of sobriety, both forms of discourse exhibit idealism in offering unblinking assessments of social realities. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that satire and journalism have an extensive history of interplay, dating back to some of the earliest venues of modern journalism. Given satire’s penchant to freely draw from the conventions and norms of a wide range of cultural practices in its pursuit of mounting social critiques, it follows that satire would frequently leverage the tools of journalism for its purposes. The journalism profession has long laid claim to privileged legitimacy in the public sphere, positioning itself as a voice of authority in interpreting public affairs events and issues. Journalism’s traditional (though certainly not uncontested) position of privilege has proven useful to satirists. Likewise, satire’s entertaining and attention-getting qualities have long enticed news media actors.
This study explored whether satire (an emotional blend of humor/indignation) can minimize the emotional tradeoffs researchers have documented for humorous appeals about climate change. Using a sample of U.S. young adults, we conducted a 2 (humor: present/absent) × 2 (indignation: present/absent) + 1 (control) experiment in which we manipulated a climate change segment from Jimmy Kimmel Live! Our evidence suggests that it is possible for a late-night host to affect young adults’ climate change risk perception and behavioral intentions under certain conditions. Moderation analyses indicated that avoiding humor helped close the partisan gap in risk perception between Republicans and Democrats.
Despite its cultural reach and influence, comedy may not be well-understood in communication and public engagement efforts for social justice challenges. Research about comedy’s influence in social issues exists across disciplines and lacks common language. This article creates a practical framework toward the understanding of mediated comedy in social change communication by presenting a typology of distinct formats of comedy – scripted entertainment, satire news, humorous ads, and stand-up comedy – and synthesizing multidisciplinary scholarship that deals with the role of comedy in audience understanding of civic and social issues. The resulting framework for comedy’s influence in social justice includes: attracting attention, persuasion, offering a way into complex issues, dissolving social barriers, and encouraging message sharing. Implications for leveraging comedy in social change public engagement efforts, as well as directions for future innovation and research, are discussed.
A content analysis of 900 political- and health-related media articles published in 11 outlets from 2010 through 2015 reveals a complete disconnect between discussions of statistical power and alpha levels. This study proposes the use of discontinuous criterion power analyses to address this power-alpha blind spot. Additional analyses indicate a sizeable percentage (41.1%) of published works in these areas retaining sufficient statistical power (i.e. .95 or greater) to warrant the use of a stricter alpha level than the traditional α = .05 to detect small effects. The surgical use of more stringent alpha levels to guard against Type I error will instill greater confidence in the empirical findings generated by media research conducted in political and health contexts.
Recently, integrating multiple online media to achieve synergistic effects has become more and more popular, and this is primarily driven by emerging online interactive media. Scholars and practitioners are interested in the relationship between online media sequence and consumer persuasion. However, how online media sequence influences consumer persuasion is not fully understood. Previous studies have had inconsistent conclusions about media sequence on this relationship. Using the media congruence hypothesis and primacy effects as our theoretical foundation, we investigate how consumer persuasion, mainly reflected as message acceptance and message responses, is influenced by different types of online media sequence and product types. The results show that the interaction between them type affects consumer persuasion. For search products, the sequence of first online broadcast media and then online interactive media makes consumers be higher in message acceptance and message responses. For experience products though, online interactive media then online broadcast media make consumers prone to higher message acceptance and message responses. Message acceptance mediates the effect of online media sequence on message responses also. This study contributes to the empirical research on online media synergy and integrated marketing communications, and has practical implications that we discuss also.
With the upsurge of political resistance in January 2011, politics became the focus of the
majority of Egyptians. In such troubled times, political satire is often used as a form of
revolt that serves to publicly express feelings and challenge the course of action. A new
type of political satire emerged via Bassem Youssef’s YouTube show that earned him
millions of viewers in just a few months. Shortly after, Youssef was dubbed “Egypt’s Jon
Stewart” and started to present his popular television show Al-Bernameg. The show
mocked politicians and parodied mainstream media in Egypt. This was a new phenomenon
that elicited controversial feedback, with some critics stating that the show simply
provided satirical social and political commentary, while others arguing that the content
was inappropriate for broadcast television. This article qualitatively analyzes the program’s
content and format to explore instances in which the show deconstructs dominant political
discourses and ideologies disseminated by Egyptian mainstream media.
Political satire is a type of critique that uses humour to reflect on issues in politics and media. While most of academic research has focused on entertainment shows in the United States, this study focuses on political satire in a different context, through identifying the forms of humour (irony and sarcasm) and satire types (juvenalian and horatian) in the Republic of Macedonia. In a content analysis of satirical news outlet Koza Nostra, it has been shown that lighter, more gentle horatian satire is predominant in the outlet’s articles (N=53), while instances of less inferential sarcasm outnumber those of complex irony. These findings demonstrate that political humour in the country is careful not to alienate its audiences, which in turn could be indicative of the manner in which satirical content is cognitively processed, and suggestive of wider implications for democracy and the public sphere in postcommunist Eastern European countries.
The effect of contemporary satires on the political opinions of their audiences is contested. Some scholars and commentators claim satire has a unique effect and may reach a non-traditional or a non-convinced audience. Others argue that it validates existing ideas and makes traditional forms of political participation less likely to occur. The assumption common to both sides is that satire does have some effect in shaping or influencing an opinion, if only to reinforce it. This chapter asks what kind of an effect can be shown to occur, by reporting an online experiment conducted in 2012 that assessed the effects of satire on the evaluation of political candidates in the UK and the USA. The experimental design controlled for both the self-selecting nature of satire’s audiences and satire’s educational effect. Results indicated that, unless audiences are self-selecting, all publicity is probably good publicity in terms of candidate evaluation—in the sense that even critical satiric coverage improved the candidate’s evaluation in comparison to a control group that viewed non-political humorous material. Further, the effect of viewing satire did not differ substantially in impact upon candidate evaluation from the effect of exposure to negative news coverage, suggesting results due to the acquisition of information rather than any unique effect of satire. The experimental design raises several methodological challenges and design issues for future audience opinion studies and investigations into satire’s reception.
The branding strategies of the Presidential and Prime Ministerial candidates of the US and the UK respectively have great learning implications for the political marketers worldwide. Especially the branding campaigns of Barack Obama have been much appreciated. Recently, the insurgent Pre-election Presidential branding campaign of President Donald Trump is also taken lessons from. Similarly, the Bhartiya Janta Party's (BJP's) branding campaign in India has been revolutionary in Indian Politics, often cited as Presidential Style campaign. One of the remarkable features in this election was an intensive use of Social Media and Integrated Marketing Communications. Hence, the objectives of this study are to perform qualitative and quantitative conceptual content analysis of the pre-election Facebook posts of BJP for duration of six months to identify the political branding strategies deployed by the party. The outcome of the study endeavors to draw branding lessons from this campaign and propose future scope of study in the arena of political branding.
The present investigation combines cognitive dissonance theory with entertainment-education frameworks to study selection and effects of news. Selective exposure to satirical and partisan news was examined with online clips to test hypotheses on overcoming resistance to persuasive messages. An experiment (n=146) presented news choices, varied in stance (conservative vs. liberal) and format (serious partisan news vs. satirical news). Results show political interest fosters selection of serious partisan news. Clips with partisan alignment were more frequently selected; only for the satirical news clips, Democrats did not exhibit such confirmation bias. Selecting satirical news affected internal political efficacy, and selecting online news clips induced attitude reinforcement according to message stance.
In an effort to tease out possible expressions of dispositional differences in people of different political ideologies, this study uses media preference and consumption data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES08-Online) to examine characteristics of audiences for a range of television shows and genres. The individual shows include two political satires, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and The Colbert Report; a late-night comedy/variety show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno; a hospital-based ensemble situation comedy, Scrubs; two animated comedies, The Simpsons, and The Family Guy; and two action-oriented dramas, 24, and CSI: Miami. The genres include comedies, dramas, sports and documentaries. The results of a series of one-way ANOVAs and regression analyses supported the hypotheses that conservatives do not enjoy humor as much as liberals, and that they enjoy political humor even less than non-political humor.
This study broaches the question of the impact of televised political satire as perceived by viewers. It offers a new perspective: the differing perceptions of citizens and the communication directors of political parties regarding its capacity for bringing about changes or contributing to the diffusion of information about political issues. The main research question is about whether there are differences between the views of citizens and those of the communication directors of political parties regarding the perceived effects of the satirical Spanish programme Polònia. As a result of data obtained by means of three cross-referenced methodological approaches (random surveys, focus groups and interviews), it is concluded that political communication directors consider that the satire is closer to real events than citizens do, and believe that it has a considerable persuasive effect. However, the citizens consulted in the sample deny that it could heighten their interest in politics or lead to a change of opinion.
On November 28 and 29, 2012, ten scholars of political parody and satire and six parody/viral video producers met at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania to share their expertise, discuss the democratic uses of parody, and develop a set of strategies to guide the successful use of political parody in generating positive democratic outcomes. The symposium, P6: Professors and Practitioners Pontificate on Political Parody and Persuasion, was cosponsored by the Center for Political Communication at the University of Delaware and funded in part by a grant from the Omidyar Network's Democracy Fund. The meeting served as a follow-up to the yearlong Annenberg Public Policy Center online project, FlackCheck.org. FlackCheck.org, the sister site to its companion FactCheck.org, is an educational site that uses entertaining visual formats and humor to inform the public and debunk false political claims. The November conference began with a keynote from Trevor Potter, former head of the FEC and lawyer to Stephen Colbert and his satirical-though very real-super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.
This chapter outlines the two basic routes to persuasion. One route is based on the thoughtful consideration of arguments central to the issue, whereas the other is based on the affective associations or simple inferences tied to peripheral cues in the persuasion context. This chapter discusses a wide variety of variables that proved instrumental in affecting the elaboration likelihood, and thus the route to persuasion. One of the basic postulates of the Elaboration Likelihood Model—that variables may affect persuasion by increasing or decreasing scrutiny of message arguments—has been highly useful in accounting for the effects of a seemingly diverse list of variables. The reviewers of the attitude change literature have been disappointed with the many conflicting effects observed, even for ostensibly simple variables. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) attempts to place these many conflicting results and theories under one conceptual umbrella by specifying the major processes underlying persuasion and indicating the way many of the traditionally studied variables and theories relate to these basic processes. The ELM may prove useful in providing a guiding set of postulates from which to interpret previous work and in suggesting new hypotheses to be explored in future research.
Copyright © 1986 Academic Press Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
This study extends political humor effects research by focusing on two distinct types of satire, juvenalian and horatian. Theoretical arguments grounded in the elaboration likelihood model culminated in the positing of a series of interactions between message (juvenalian, horatian, traditional opinion-editorial) and recipient ability (high, low) relative to three outcome variables: perceived humor, counterarguing, and attitudes concerning Hillary Clinton’s universal health care plan. An experiment was conducted during the 2008 Democratic primary election. The Message × Ability interactions revealed a need to step beyond the study of satire as monolithic; different types of satire produce divergent effects depending on the ability of the audience member. Future lines of research and the need for additional theory building are discussed.
This article explores two largely untested assumptions that dominate popular and scholarly examinations of the “late-night comedy audience.” The first assumption is that young people are tuning in to late-night comedy programs instead of the news. The second assumption is that there is one monolithic “late-night audience.” Using data from both the 2004 Pew Research Center Political Communications Study and the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, this article provides evidence that challenges these two assumptions, illustrating that young people are tuning in to late-night comedy in addition to—rather than in the place of—news and that the audiences of various late-night comedy programs have distinct sociodemographic and political profiles
We test the effects of a popular televised source of political humor for young Americans: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. We find that participants exposed to jokes about George W. Bush and John Kerry on The Daily Show tended to rate both candidates more negatively, even when controlling for partisanship and other demographic variables. Moreover, we find that viewers exhibit more cynicism toward the electoral system and the news media at large. Despite these negative reactions, viewers of The Daily Show reported increased confidence in their ability to understand the complicated world of politics. Our findings are significant in the burgeoning field of research on the effects of “soft news” on the American public. Although research indicates that soft news contributes to democratic citizenship in America by reaching out to the inattentive public, our findings indicate that The Daily Show may have more detrimental effects, driving down support for political institutions and leaders among those already inclined toward nonparticipation.
The widespread use of fear appeals in health communication campaigns seems to reflect the existence of a folk theory that predicts message acceptance as a function of induced fright. Whereas there is empirical evidence consistent with that position, recent research also shows that other affects may influence message acceptance as well. Two studies were conducted to determine the extent to which a sample of public service announcements (PSAs) on the topic of AIDS / HIV evoked affective responses, the degree to which those affects predicted message acceptance, and the mechanism by which feelings, including fear; operate on message acceptance. Results showed that a variety of affects were induced by the PSAs, most of which did predict message acceptance. However, considerable variation was observed in both sign and magnitude of the associations. As for mechanism, the data suggested that the effects of affect on message acceptance were mediated by heuristic rather than systematic message processing.
This research was designed to assess the effects of contemporary political humor on information processing and persuasion, focusing specifically on two competing processes: processing motivation/counterargument distraction and message discounting. In Study 1, 212 undergraduates read one of four monologues by political comedian Bill Maher. Correlations and path modeling suggested that, in general, humor associated with greater source liking, closer information processing, and reduced counterargument, but also with greater message discounting. In Study 2, 204 undergraduates read one of four versions of a message based on the comedy of Chris Rock, manipulated to be more or less funny and attributed to the comedian or not. Results largely replicated those from Study 1. In addition, the humorous messages promoted more discounting than the serious messages, though they were processed with comparable depth. Although no more likely to be persuasive in the short run, the comedic transcript evidenced a sleeper effect after one week. In sum, the data were consistent with the notion that humorous messages might be processed carefully (but not critically) yet simultaneously discounted as irrelevant to attitudinal judgments. Implications for humor research and the sleeper effect are discussed.
This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.
This study examines program ordering effects derived from viewing CNN television news relative to The Daily Show on the political gratifications associated with both types of information sources. Internal political self-efficacy is assessed as an individual-difference moderator. Main primacy effects are found on the gratifications associated with both national television news viewing and The Daily Show viewing. However, The Daily Show primacy effect on the political gratifications associated with national television news viewing was isolated among those participants who retain low internal political self-efficacy. Ramifications for these findings are outlined and future lines of research are summarized.
Content analyses have focused on the messages offered in political TV satire, and the communication discipline is amassing solid empirical evidence concerning a range of effects derived from this style of programming. However, there is remarkably little understanding of who is tuning in to view political TV satire beyond the audience being dominated by a younger demographic. It is imperative to have a better understanding of the audience for these programs in order to place any effects in their proper context. A statewide survey (N=305) was conducted to identify predictors of political TV satire viewing. Analyses identify four variables which are particularly important in predicting political TV satire exposure: age, exposure to satirical sitcoms, exposure to liberal cable news programming, and the newly explicated and operationalized Affinity for Political Humor scale.
Although measures of perceived message effectiveness are commonly employed in formative evaluation research, the validity of such measures has been assumed rather than demonstrated. A meta-analysis revealed a corrected-for-attenuation correlation of .41 between perceived effectiveness (PE) and attitude (k = 40). This association was apparently subject to the influence of moderator variables, although the pattern of influence was unstable across different types of analysis. Overall, the results empirically demonstrate the value of PE judgments in formative research and in circumstances in which actual effectiveness (AE) is difficult or impossible to measure. They also prompt a host of questions concerning (a) the causal relationship between PE and AE, (b) the possibility of bias in these judgments, and (c) the potential for developing methods to reduce or remove bias in effectiveness judgments. Future research is needed to corroborate these results as well as broaden the range of AE measures.
As young Americans increasingly turn to political comedy programs like The Daily Show, scholars should seek to understand viewers' perceptions of these shows. To study audience perceptions, we draw on the theoretical lens of the “third-person effect,” examining audience evaluations of The Daily Show in comparison to evaluations of hard news programming (Davison, 19838.
Davison , W. P. 1983. The third-person effect in communication.. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1): 1–15. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]View all references). The analyses presented in this research are based on data from an experimental study conducted with undergraduate participants (N = 332) at a major Midwestern university in the spring of 2007. Our findings reveal a significant third-person effect pattern for comedy programming, distinct from that observed for traditional hard news, among a key segment of the political comedy audience. A subsequent evaluation of hostile media effects connected with The Daily Show broadens our investigation of the perceived impacts related to viewing political comedy. We conclude by discussing the ways that this pattern of findings helps illuminate the direct effects of political comedy.
Humor in advertising is known to enhance product liking, but this attitude change is often considered nonpredictive of product choice. Previous research relied exclusively on explicit self-report measures to assess attitudes and purchase intentions. The present research shows that unobtrusive association of a product with humor can affect persuasion through implicit attitude change. Participants viewed humorous and nonhumorous cartoons in a mock-up magazine. One of two products was consistently presented in the vicinity of the humorous cartoons, whereas the other product was consistently presented in the vicinity of the nonhumorous cartoons. The results of an evaluative priming task showed enhanced evaluations of products paired with humor (Experiment 1, 2, and 3). Furthermore, these enhanced evaluations mediated the relation between association with humor and product choice (Experiment 2 and 3). Paradoxically, products paired with humor were also less recognized than the control products (Experiments 2 and 3). In summary, the present research demonstrates that mere association with humor enhances product evaluations and product choice in a way that is dissociated from the accessibility of the product in memory.
This study examined the relative perceived effectiveness of 30 antidrug public service announcements (PSAs) and assessed the extent to which judgments of effectiveness are related to judgments of realism, amount learned, and positive and negative emotional responses.
Data were obtained from 3608 students in grades 5 through 12 in 10 schools. The ethnically diverse sample was 50.8% male. Students in 5 experimental conditions viewed sets of 6 antidrug PSAs and filled out a brief evaluation questionnaire following each PSA. Those in the control condition viewed a non-drug-related television program.
The relative perceived effectiveness of the 30 PSAs varied considerably. Sixteen were rated as significantly more effective, and 6 as significantly less effective, than the control program. Relative rated effectiveness was highly related to realism (r =.87), amount learned (r =.88), negative emotion (r =.87), and positive emotion (r = -.35).
Evaluative research is necessary to prevent broadcast of PSAs that could have a negative impact. PSAs should point out the negative consequences of drug use behavior rather than telling adolescents to "just say no."
A wide range of entertainment media content has been shown to influence some of our most important democratic outcomes. In addition, political communication scholarship is beginning to look at how certain entertainment-based media outlets function alongside more traditional political outlets (e.g., TV news, debates). In today's complex media environment, it is apparent that audience members do not experience entertainment media or news in complete isolation. There is hybridity across individuals, across genres, and across texts. Studying how various forms of political information work together, and how people make sense of them in tandem, is essential to understanding the broader role of media in politics. This chapter offers a plan of action designed to allow political communication researchers to engage in a theoretically grounded, systematic study of how entertainment media relates to, informs, and interacts with more traditional public affairs media within the context of politics.
Keywords:
entertainment;
politics;
narrative;
humor;
transportation;
satire;
cognition;
affect
The Literature of Satire is an accessible but sophisticated and wide-ranging study of satire from the classics to the present in plays, novels and the press as well as in verse. In it Charles Knight analyses the rhetorical problems created by satire's complex relations to its community, and examines how it exploits the genres it borrows. He argues that satire derives from an awareness of the differences between appearance, ideas and discourse. Knight provides illuminating readings of such satirists familiar and unfamiliar as Horace, Lucian, Jonson, Molière, Swift, Pope, Byron, Flaubert, Ostrovsky, Kundera, and Rushdie. This broad-ranging examination sheds light on the nature and functions of satire as a mode of writing, as well as on theoretical approaches to it. It will be of interest to scholars interested in literary theory as well as those specifically interested in satire.
This article offers a formal normative assessment of political satire. It summarizes social scientific research on the influence of political satire and findings on the normative implications of political satire within a democratic framework. Two cogent lines of empirical research, persuasion and understanding, receive special attention. Political satire's potential to generate normatively positive democratic effects is examined according to three competing theories of democracy: republicanism, pluralism, and elitism. Reports of its relatively small effect prevent clear normative judgments on satire as good or bad for democracy. However, its relationship to internal political self-efficacy merits further investigation. At the system level, political satire might generate significant normatively positive effects in the republican and elitist democratic frameworks. Examples of U.S. traditional political satire reveal the boundaries within which satire functions and their impact on the normative roles of this potentially important form of political discourse.
The impact of entertainment-education messages on beliefs, attitudes, and behavior is typically explained in terms of social cognitive theory principles. However , important additional insights regarding reasons why entertainment-education messages have effects can be derived from the processing of persuasive content in narrative messages. Elaboration likelihood approaches suggest that absorption in a narrative, and response to characters in a narrative, should enhance persuasive effects and suppress counterarguing if the implicit persuasive content is counterattitudinal. Also, persuasion mediators and moderators such as topic involvement should be reduced in importance. Evidence in support of these propositions are reviewed in this article. Research needed to extend application of these findings to entertainment-education contexts, to further develop theory in the area of persuasion and narrative, and to better account for other persuasive effects of entertainment narrative, such as those hypothesized in cultivation theory, are discussed.
Ten years ago Davison formulated the third-person effect hypothesis, a novel approach to the study of public opinion. Davison
proposed that individuals typically assume that mass communications exert a stronger impact on others than the self, and he
derived some interesting ideas from this notion. Over the past decade, a number of studies have tested predictions derived
from Davison's formulation. This paper reviews and synthesizes research on the third-person effect. A systematic review of
third-person effect studies indicates that there is abundant support for the notion that individuals assume that communications
exert a stronger influence on others than on the self. However, the third-person effect does not emerge in all circumstances
and for all people. The effect appears to be particularly likely to emerge when the message contains recommendations that
are not perceived to be personally beneficial, when individuals perceive that the issue is personally important, and when
they perceive that the source harbors a negative bias. Considerably less is known about the processes that underlie the third-person
effect. This paper proposes several explanations for the effect, and it suggests some directions for future research in this
area.
Humorous coverage of political objects (e.g., political figures, issues, and events) is one of the central themes of political comedy shows (e.g., Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart). This is particularly true during presidential campaigns. Many people, particularly young people, claim to watch such programs regularly. This study examined the relationship between exposure to political comedy shows and political knowledge during the 2000 and 2004 primary campaigns. The results indicated that age and education had modest interactive effects with such exposure on campaign knowledge.
This article explores humor's impact on cognitive processing of political messages. Although recent research has pointed to effects of late-night comedy viewing on political attitudes and cognitions (Moy, Xenos, & Hess, 2003; Young, 200482.
Young , D. G. 2004 . Late-night comedy in election 2000: Its influence on candidate trait ratings and the moderating effects of political knowledge . Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 48 : 1 – 22 . [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]View all references, 200683.
Young , D. G. 2006 . Late-night comedy and the salience of the candidates' caricatured traits in the 2000 election . Mass Communication and Society , 9 : 339 – 366 . [Taylor & Francis Online]View all references), scant attention has been paid to the development of a theoretical model to account for these outcomes. This manuscript posits that humor suspends argument scrutiny of the premise of a given text through various cognitive mechanisms involving processing ability and motivation. Four different pathways accounting for humor's reduction of argument scrutiny are discussed. Humor's reduction of argument scrutiny is tested with an experiment with a three condition between subjects design in which participants engaged in a thought-listing exercise after exposure to either humorous political messages (late-night political jokes) or non-humorous equivalents (unfunny translations of those jokes). Results indicate that humor reduces critical argument scrutiny—in part through the “discounting cue” mechanism. Implications for persuasion are discussed.
The effects of exposure to different types of humor on argument scrutiny were examined in the context of televised messages. A resource allocation hypothesis (Young, 200835.
Young , D. G. 2008 . The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor's role in disrupting argument scrutiny . Media Psychology , 11 : 119 – 142 . [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]View all references) and a discounting cue hypothesis (Nabi, Moyer-Guse, & Byrne, 200724.
Nabi , R. L. , Moyer-Guse , E. and Byrne , S. 2007 . All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages . Communication Monographs , 74 : 29 – 54 . [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]View all references) are discussed and explored. Participants (N = 188) watched clips of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in which Stewart satirized American policy toward Iraq using either sarcasm (not complex) or irony (complex). Participants were then asked to counterargue these messages. A coding scheme was used to assess the extent of counterargumentation, and attitude change was also assessed based on a pretest/posttest semantic differential scale. Results indicated that irony reduced argument scrutiny on the premises of the messages relative to sarcasm, but no main effect was found for type of humor on attitude shift. Results also indicate a conditional effect of political efficacy, which moderates the effect of humor type on argument scrutiny. Implications for persuasion and public opinion are discussed.
In research examining the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), argument quality has generally been treated as an expedient methodological tool rather than a conceptually meaningful construct. Differences between strong and weak arguments have typically been cast in terms of pretest results and/or the ad hoc interpretations of researchers. Given the importance of creating effective verbal arguments in marketing communications, a stronger theoretical rationale is needed to establish why, exactly, some verbal arguments are more persuasive than others. Drawing on the literature in logic, social psychology, jurisprudence, and sociolinguistics, this research examines various structural and grammatical elements of verbal arguments in order to develop conceptually meaningful definitions of argument quality and more rigorous theoretical accounts of argument-driven persuasion within the ELM. Several research propositions are derived in order to suggest directions for future research on argument-driven persuasion. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Research has examined the ability of entertainment-education (E-E) programs to influence behavior across a variety of health and social issues. However, less is known about the underlying mechanisms that account for these effects. In keeping with the extended elaboration likelihood model (E-ELM) and the entertainment overcoming resistance model (EORM), we examined how story features, such as narrative transportation and involvement with characters, may reduce three forms of resistance to persuasion - reactance, counterarguing, and perceived invulnerability. In a between-subjects experiment, 367 undergraduates viewed either a dramatic narrative or a nonnarrative program about the difficult consequences of an unplanned teen pregnancy. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their reactions to the program immediately after viewing and again 2 weeks later. Consistent with predictions derived from the EORM and E-ELM, the dramatic narrative reduced reactance by fostering parasocial interaction with characters and decreasing perceptions of persuasive intent. Also as expected, identification with characters in the narrative reduced counterarguing and increased perceived vulnerability to unplanned pregnancy - although the latter occurred only at the delayed posttest 2 weeks after exposure. Unexpectedly, transportation into the dramatic narrative was associated with greater counterarguing. Taken together, this research demonstrates that investigating narrative influence from the perspective of overcoming resistance is a useful approach. Findings also suggest important differences in how individuals process narrative and nonnarrative messages.
This article takes up Bennett and Iyengar's (2008) call for debate about the future of political communication effects research. We outline 4 key criticisms. First, Bennett and Iyengar are too quick to dismiss the importance of attitude reinforcement, long recognized as an important type of political media influence. Second, the authors take too narrow a view of the sources of political information, remaining fixated on news. Third, they offer an incomplete portrayal of selective exposure, exaggerating the extent to which individuals avoid attitude-discrepant information. Finally, they lean toward determinism when describing the role technologies play in shaping our political environment. In addition, we challenge Bennett and Iyengar's assertion that only brand new theory can serve to help researchers understand today's political communication landscape. We argue that existing tools, notably the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), retain much utility for examining political media effects. Contrary to Bennett and Iyengar's claims, the ELM suggests that the contemporary political information environment does not necessarily lead to minimal effects.
The impact of entertainment—education messages on beliefs, attitudes, and behavior is typically explained in terms of social cognitive theory principles. However, important additional insights regarding reasons why entertainment—education messages have effects can be derived from the processing of persuasive content in narrative messages. Elaboration likelihood approaches suggest that absorption in a narrative, and response to characters in a narrative, should enhance persuasive effects and suppress counterarguing if the implicit persuasive content is counterattitudinal. Also, persuasion mediators and moderators such as topic involvement should be reduced in importance. Evidence in support of these propositions are reviewed in this article. Research needed to extend application of these findings to entertainment—education contexts, to further develop theory in the area of persuasion and narrative, and to better account for other persuasive effects of entertainment narrative, such as those hypothesized in cultivation theory, are discussed.
Two studies examined the heuristic and systematic processing of accuracy-versus impression-moti-vated individuals expecting a discussion with a partner believed to hold either a favorable or unfa-vorable opinion on the discussion issue. Given the goal of having a pleasant interaction, impression-motivated (versus accuracy-motivated) participants in both studies were particularly likely to ex-press attitudes that were evaluatively consistent with the partner's opinion, reflecting their selective use of a "go along to get along" heuristic. Study 2 yielded stronger evidence for the distinct nature of heuristic and systematic processing in the service of accuracy versus impression goals. In this study, the evaluative implication of impression-motivated participants' low-effort application of a "go along to get along" heuristic biased their more effortful, systematic processing, leading to attitudes consis-tent with the partner's views. In contrast, given the goal of determining an accurate issue opinion, accuracy-motivated participants exhibited relatively evenhanded systematic processing, resulting in attitudes unbiased by the partner's opinion. The results underscore the utility of a dual-process approach to understanding motivated cognition. Intuition and experience suggest that various motives can in-fluence the way in which people process information and the judgments that result. That is, the motivated perceiver's cogni-tive processes will be a direct reflection of the goals that they are intended to satisfy. Using the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980, 1987; Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) as a theoretical framework, the present research aims to elucidate the distinct ways in which accuracy versus impression motives are served by both heuristic and systematic processes.
This study extends priming research in political communication by focusing on an alternative political information source (i.e., Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11), affect rather than cognitions, and the existence of intra-affective ambivalence. In addition, two moderator variables are analyzed: political party identification and need for closure. There is a statically significant three-way interaction between the viewing of F 9-11, political party identification, and need for closure relative to the dependent variable of affective ambivalence toward George W. Bush. High need for closure Republicans who viewed F 9-11 exhibited pronounced levels of Bush-affective ambivalence. In addition, high need for closure Independents who viewed F 9-11 exhibited far lower ambivalence toward Bush relative to their control group peers. The findings are discussed relative to the roles performed by emerging alternative political media and the expansion of the theory of priming within the context of political communication.
Although direct influences of media have been the primary focus of mass communication research, recent theoretical developments have suggested powerful and important indirect effects as well. Derived from the third-person effect hypothesis and related research, but describing a broader range of phenomena, the indirect effects model proposes that people (a) perceive some effect of a message on others and then (b) react to that perception. We call this model the influence of presumed influence. The general model was tested with evaluation data from a maternal health campaign in Nepal. A key aspect of the campaign was a serial radio drama directed at clinic health workers. Results showed, however, that many women in the general population also listened to the serial. The program had no direct positive influence on this population, but we found a significant indirect influence on their attitudes and reported behaviors when mediated by their perceptions of impact on the target population of clinic health workers.
A growing body of research indicates that entertainment-education programming can be an effective way to deliver prosocial and health messages. Some have even speculated that entertainment-education may be more effective than overtly persuasive messages in certain circumstances. Despite empirical advances in this area, more work is needed to understand fully what makes entertainment-education unique from a message-processing standpoint. To this end, the present article has three objectives. First, the article examines the involvement with narrative storylines and characters that is fostered by entertainment programming. This includes a much-needed explication and separation of several related constructs, such as identification, parasocial interaction, similarity, and others. Second, the article reviews and synthesizes existing theories that have addressed entertainment-education message processing. Third, the article builds on these theories, presenting an expanded theoretical framework. A set of propositions is advanced and directions for future research are discussed. In total, the article offers a clarification of existing concepts that are critical to the study of entertainment-education, a synthesis of relevant theory, and a set of propositions to guide future research in entertainment-education message effects.
The influence of ''infoenterpropagainment'': Exploring the power of political satire as a distinct form of political humor
- R P Caufield
Caufield, R. P. (2008). The influence of ''infoenterpropagainment'': Exploring the power of political satire as a distinct form of political humor. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Routledge.
Entertaining politics: Satiric television and political engagement
- J P Jones
Jones, J. P. (2010). Entertaining politics: Satiric television and political engagement. Rowman & Littlefield.
On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 3– 16) Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages
- G R Miller
Miller, G. R. (1980/2002). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & M. P. Pfau (eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 3– 16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moyer-Guse, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407–425.
GPower version 3.1.2. Retrieved on September 1, 2010 from http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf The nature of attitudes, cognitive responses, and their relationships to behavior
- A Buchner
- E Erdfelder
- F Faul
- A Lang
- Gpower
- J T Cacioppo
- S G Harkins
- R E Petty
Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Lang, A. (2009). GPower version 3.1.2. Retrieved on September 1, 2010 from http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/aap/projects/gpower/ Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes, cognitive responses, and their relationships to behavior. In R. E. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 31–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daily Show viewers knowledgeable about presidential campaign, National Annenberg Election Survey shows The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor's role in disrupting argument scrutiny
- D G Young
Young, D. G. (2004, September 21). Daily Show viewers knowledgeable about presidential campaign, National Annenberg Election Survey shows. Retrieved December 27, 2005, from http://www.naes04.org. Young, D. G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor's role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11, 119–142.
Entertaining the citizen: When politics and popular culture converge
- L Van Zoonen
van Zoonen, L. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: When politics and popular culture converge. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Experimental designs for political communication research: Using new technology and online participant pools to overcome the problem of generalizability The sourcebook for political communication re-search: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques
- S Iyengar
Iyengar, S. (2011). Experimental designs for political communication research: Using new technology and online participant pools to overcome the problem of generalizability. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (eds.), The sourcebook for political communication re-search: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 129–148). New York, NY: Routledge.