Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 14:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Broadcasting &Electronic MediaPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbem20
Political talk radio: Actionsspeak louder than wordsC. Richard Hofstetter a & Christopher L. Gianos ba Professor of Political Science and AdjunctProfessor Graduate School of Public Health , SanDiego State Universityb Ph.D. in the Department of Politics and Society ,University of California, IrvinePublished online: 18 May 2009.
To cite this article: C. Richard Hofstetter & Christopher L. Gianos (1997) Politicaltalk radio: Actions speak louder than words, Journal of Broadcasting & ElectronicMedia, 41:4, 501-515, DOI: 10.1080/08838159709364423
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838159709364423
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/fall 1997
Political Talk Radio: Actions Speak Louderthan Words
C. Richard Hofstetter and Christopher L. Gianos
This study examined differences among groups of listeners to political talkradio using data from a sample survey of adults in San Diego, California(N=583) from the perspective of Grunig's situational involvement model.More involved political talk radio listeners were characterized by greaterpolitical and social participation than less involved. The political talkradio audience was found to be higher in social economic status, moresocially and politically integrated in society, and more attentive to politi-cal issues. Differences in political variables remained after statistical con-trols for education, age, political interest, and general exposure to televi-sion, newspapers, and radio were applied. Among more active audiencemembers, limited motivational data suggest that political talk radio serveda mix of needs, including seeking political information, interpreting reali-ty, or companionship through parasocial interaction. Thus, more activelisteners may also be less susceptible to potentially propagandistic appealsof political talk since they are less dependent on the medium for informa-tion. While this interpretation does not preclude considerable politicaltalk radio influence on cognition and behavior, multiple participatorylinkages to society among the more active audience members may con-strain the arbitrary influence of political talk radio hosts.
Tom Shales, the Washington Posts television critic, labeled the 1992 presidentialelection "the talk show campaign" because of the influence of radio and televisedtalk shows (Jost, 1994). During the past ten years the number of all-talk radio stationsor news-and-talk stations has more than quadrupled to about 850 stations in theUnited States. The flamboyance and surge in the popularity of the format has ledcommentators to speculate about its impact on the political process (Katz, 1991;Page & Tannenbaum, 1996). Even on talk radio programs, the effects of political talkradio on politics have been widely debated.
C. Richard Hofstetter (Ph.D., Indiana University, 1967) is Professor of Political Science and Adjunct Pro-fessor Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University. His research interests include politicalcommunication and mass communication. Christopher L. Gianos (M.A., San Diego State University, 1995)is pursuing a Ph.D. in the Department of Politics and Society, University of California, Irvine. His researchinterests include American public policy, environmental policy, and American politics. We thank CarolynHuie Hofstetter and anonymous referees for numerous comments that improved this manuscript. This man-uscript was accepted for publication in May, 1997.
© 1997 Broadcast Education Association Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 41, 1997, pp. 501-515
501
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
502 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/Fall 1997
Political talk radio is a forum used by politicians and political candidates to dis-cuss policy issues and broader philosophical issues pertaining to government, oftenin a controlled environment without serious challenges from the media or opposingviews (Carlson, 1993). From their pulpit, talk radio hosts and guests attack govern-ment, specific policies, and opposing leaders while using this position as a way toadvance their own ideologies. There is no dearth of commentary about the impactof political talk radio. Perhaps because its growing popularity as an information andentertainment source, rigorous scientific studies of talk radio are beginning toappear, although the studies still raise many questions. This study examines politicaltalk radio listeners by focusing on specialized groups of passive, active, and non- lis-teners and describing associated political behaviors.
Background
Concern about political talk radio expressed by many commentators parallelsanxieties about other electronic technologies. Although the most dire consequenceshave not been realized, new technologies have vastly increased the amount ofinformation available and have enhanced the role of mass media as the major dis-tributor of political information to Americans (Weaver, 1996; Dalton, 1996: 21-24;Graber, 1993; Herbst, 1995; Schement, Belay & Jeong, 1993; Meehan, 1984; Zukin,1981). The medium has been described as a mechanism that can focus popularuprisings against social and political elites under the appropriate conditions (Page &Tannenbaum, 1996), although one recent analysis documented an absence of mobi-lization messages in manifest content (Davis, 1996).
A vast literature suggests that television may have decreased the trust Americanshave in government (Ansolabehere, lyengar, Simon, & Valentino, 1994; Patterson,1993; Zukin, 1981; Robinson, 1976), increased and altered political participationand psychological involvement, increased the level of factual and other informationavailable about issues, personalities, appeals, and controversies (Weaver, 1996;Mondak, 1995; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993), and informed persons who might nothave had access otherwise (Qualter, 1989; Herman & Chomsky, 1988), albeit inways that may be unintentionally (Qualter, 1989) or intentionally misleading(Herman & Chomsky, 1988).
Political Talk Radio
Chasing audience ratings no less vigorously than television (Prato, 1993), radio sta-tions typically operate with much smaller, more closely targeted audiences and there-fore are more substantively specialized than television, often focusing on a mix oflocal and national issues (Schement, Belay, & Jeong, 1993; Broadcasting, 1990). Somesyndicated commentators, such as Rush Limbaugh, focus on highly ideologicallycharged national issues that usually have implications for local politics. Most talk sta-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hofstetter, Cianos/POLITICAL TALK RADIO 503
tions also present programming by local commentators concerning local issues, some-times with a flamboyant and ideological coloration mimicking that of the nationalhosts. In San Diego for example we found Roger Hedgecock, former mayor of the city,mimicked national hosts but focused on issues of concern to the San Diego region.
Three decades of episodic talk radio research has summarized thematic and styl-istic content of what is said and how it is presented (Crittenden, 1971; Avery & Ellis,1977; Murray & Vedlitz, 1987), surveyed talk radio station callers (Armstrong & Rubin,1989; Tramer & Jeffres, 1983; Bierig & Dimmick, 1979; Turow, 1974; Crittenden,1971), studied community populations that include non-listeners as well as listeners(Hofstetter, Donovan, Klauber, Cole, Huie, & Yuasa, 1994; Surlin, 1986) or nationalpopulations (Traugott, Berinsky, Cramer, Howard, Mayer, Schuckman, Prieto,Tewksbury, & Young, 1996). The research modalities have produced a variety of find-ings concerning political talk radio content and impact, but more recent population-based studies that compare listeners with non-listeners suggest that political talk radioexposure may be associated with political involvement, information, participation,andhigher education and income (Hollander, 1996), and self-efficacy, lack of alienation,and higher education and income (Hofstetter, 1994; Traugott, 1996).
Theoretical Framework
How are we to make sense of all this? Grunig (1983, 1984, 1989) provides a the-ory that unifies characteristics of individuals, the situations in which they find them-selves, and their communication behaviors. Grunig's theory of situational involvementwas used to organize hypotheses concerning talk radio. According to Grunig's situa-tional-involvement model, communication assumes two forms, passive and active.Passive communication occurs when individuals process information that exists in theenvironment with minimal expenditure of energy and purpose of intent. Active com-munication occurs when individuals seek out information purposely with high expen-ditures of information. Active communication is more likely to lead to knowledge gainand to form the basis for overt behavior than is passive communication. In this study,we were interested in how radio audiences, defined in terms of involvement with themedium (i.e., behaviors associated with exposure to talk radio), were characterized byforms of political behavior that implied susceptibility or resistance to personal influ-ence by the medium. If individuals engage in actions because of talk radio the mostactive listeners might be expected to be most responsive to the host's views.
Although limited correlational studies support the notion that political talk radiois associated with political participation in ways similar to self reports of news expo-sure about politics and government (Joslyn, 1984; Graber, 1989; Rosenstone &Hansen, 1993), much about the nature of this association remains uncertain. Littleis known, for instance, about the differences between listeners who call and aretherefore more involved with the content or the medium, listeners who do not call,and non-listeners. Not all analysts draw similar conclusions (Weaver, 1996).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
504 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/Fall 1997
Based on limited findings of most recent studies, people who are more politicallyinvolved, interested, efficacious, and participatory, including the better educated,more affluent, and less socially and politically isolated and alienated, listen to polit-ical talk radio more than others. These are people least likely to be influenced bypersuasive appeals, most likely to apply informational resources to critical evalua-tion of talk radio, and most likely to react to information that they regard as disin-genuous. In short, listeners who are more involved or active with the medium, areassumed to take on the characteristics of Grunig's active consumers of media. In thisstudy we hypothesize that political talk radio listeners vary in their involvement withthe medium and that the more involved are also more active in communication andparticipatory attitudes and behaviors.
Methodology
The Sample
Data were drawn from a Random-Digit-Dial telephone survey of adults in the SanDiego metropolitan area selected by the "most recent birthday" method (Frey 1983:110-115) living in households that could be reached by residential telephone.Interviewing was conducted by students in a 1992 graduate political behavior classafter they had been trained in telephone interviewing procedures.
All interviews were completed in English with 583 respondents (less than five per-cent of potential subjects were eliminated because of an inability to complete theinterview in English). This resulted in a completion rate of 65 percent. Distributionsfrom the sample generally coincided with 1990 U. S. Census data for San Diego,although the sample tended to slightly underrepresent minorities, less well educat-ed, and less affluent persons.
San Diego is generally regarded as conservative and Republican in politics. About27.7 percent surveyed were strong or weak Republicans, 10.4 percent leanedRepublican, 29.7 percent were independent, 8.8 percent leaned Democratic, 22.6percent were strong or weak Democrats, and 0.8 percent said they identified withno party. About 37.4 percent said they were very conservative or conservative, 28.3percent said they were liberal or very liberal, and 11.5 percent did not think of them-selves along these lines.
Respondents were well educated and affluent, reporting 14.51 (SD=3.0) years offormal schooling completed and a mean income of approximately $33,400(SD=$14,400). High education and income likely accounted for the high degree ofmedia penetration in the form of one dominant and several other daily newspapers,14 local AM stations, 24 FM stations, and seven local television stations (West1991). Respondents reported listening to radio a mean of 2.6 (SD=2.8) hours a day,reading a newspaper an average of 4.5 (SD=2.8) days a week and watching televi-sion an average of 2.8 (SD=1.9) hours a day.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hofstetter, Cianos/POLITICAL TALK RADIO 505
Measurement of Political Talk Radio and Involvement
Measurement of political talk radio exposure is problematic since radio exposuremay be experienced casually and passively by the public (as is much television pro-gramming). Consequently, many adults do not hold a clear definition of "political"talk radio programming when asked about their exposure to "political talk radio,"and mentioned a multitude of "non-political" commentators and disc jockeys inresponse to questions about exposure (Hofstetter et al., 1994).
An alternative approach focusing on political talk audience involvement was usedto measure exposure. First, the major political talk radio programs/hosts that broad-cast into the area were identified. Second, questions were formulated about theseparticular shows by local hosts (Roger Hedgecock, Ken Cramer, & Tom Leykis), syn-dicated hosts (Rush Limbaugh, John Hockenberry), and other political talk and non-political shows/programming. Respondents were asked: "About how many timesduring the last month have you listened to a political talk show on radio, that is, aradio program people call and talk to the host which is usually about politics andpublic affairs?" followed by "About how many times in the past month have you lis-tened to..." programs hosted by the dominant political radio talk personalities broad-casting into the area. Respondents were also asked if they listened to any other polit-ical talk shows on radio. In each case where a specific host was mentioned, the sta-tion carrying the program was requested.
Political talk radio involvement categories were formed by coding respondentsaccording to whether they had heard any political talk radio during the last month,and, if so, whether they had talked with someone else about political talk radio con-tent, taken any action because of something that they had heard on political talkradio, or whether they had called a political talk radio program. Thus, respondentswere categorized by having reported the following behaviors during the priormonth: 1) Persons who heard no political talk radio, about 55.9 percent of the sam-ple; 2) persons who heard political talk but did nothing as a result, about 8.6 per-cent; 3) persons who heard political talk radio and talked about something becauseof it but did nothing more, about 18.0 percent; 4) persons who heard political talkradio and took some action because of program content but were not callers, about9.1 percent; and 5) and persons who heard political talk radio and reported callinga host (and who may also have talked or taken action), about 8.3 percent of the sam-ple. It was assumed that the resulting categories constituted a unidimensiona! mea-sure of political talk radio involvement, and correlational analyses support this con-clusion (Hofstetter, Smith, & Zari, 1997). Due to limited sample size, adjacentgroups were collapsed into three categories for analysis: 1) Non-listeners; 2) listen-ers and talkers; and 3) listeners, actors, and callers. Findings were also replicatedusing the original classification with essentially the same results.
Assuming that the order of the codes represents increasing effort, respondents whoperformed more than one activity were classified as being at a higher level of effort.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
506 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/Fall 1997
Thus, those who did not listen were assumed to have minimal involvement with talkradio, while those who listened and talked were assumed to have greater involve-ment, and those who listened and who took some action in relation to somethingheard on a broadcast or called a program were assumed to have the greatest involve-ment with the medium.
Predictor Variables and Statistical Approach
Many variables used to characterize audiences were drawn from survey itemsdesigned to measure exposure to public affairs in mass and interpersonal communi-cation, political and social cognition associated with political participation, degreeof social interaction, attention to political content in communication media, andpolitical participation measures.1
The strategy of analysis was to compare dependent variable means among talkradio audience groups varying by level involvement, and then to subject compar-isons to statistical controls for demographic (age and education), political (politicalinterest), and public affairs media exposure in order to rule out the possibility thatdifferences were due to confounding variables (Bartels, 1993: 269). Analysis of vari-ance and covariance were used to compare means among political talk radio audi-ence segments. Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance were also used todetect overall differences among talk radio listeners in sets of items and scales, suchas exposure to public affairs in media, political and social cognition, political par-ticipation, and attention to politics in media.
Findings
General Audience Characteristics
Results show that radio programming was an extremely popular medium amongadults in San Diego. About 83.2 percent reported listening to radio during an aver-age day. Among these, mean exposure was 3.0 (SD=2.8) hours.
Penetration of talk radio was very broad in San Diego with 43.6 percent of thepublic having reported one or more exposures to "...a political talk show on radio,that is a radio program people call and talk to the host which is usually about poli-tics and public affairs" one or more times during the prior month. Those who lis-tened to political radio tended to listen routinely; only a slightly larger percentage,50.6 percent, reported that they had ever listened to political talk radio. Listenersalso listened with high levels of regularity, a mean of 9.6 (SD=9.0) times during anaverage month. About 23.9 percent of the public listened to the top rated local polit-ical talk commentator, former San Diego Mayor and political personality who hadbeen forced by scandal to resign office, Roger Hedgecock, followed by 16.3 percentwho listened to Rush Limbaugh, 15.3 percent who listened to John Hockenberry or
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hofstetter, Cianos/POLITICAL TALK RADIO 507
other "...political talk shows on (public)...radio", 11.5 percent who listened to KenCramer, 9.6 percent who listened to "...any other political talk show on radio", and7.5 percent who listened to Tom Leykis. Political talk radio listeners are a combina-tion of those who listen to local, national, and specialized talk hosts.
Many listeners were not "ditto heads" (i.e., uncritical listeners who appear to fawnover talk hosts in a blind manner and express support for what hosts assert no mat-ter how controversial or outrageous assertions may appear), but expressed consid-erable disagreement with show hosts, with only 4.9 percent reporting that they"...agreed with the talk show host...nearly all the time." About 25.9 percent report-ed that they agreed "most of the time," while 56.8 percent reported that they agreed"some of the time." About one in eight listeners, 12.4 percent, reported that theyagreed with political talk radio hosts "very little of the time."
Political talk radio listeners constituted an attentive public, and may have been farless passive in listening habits than might be expected based on characteristics ofaudiences of the other broadcast medium television. About 57.7 percent reportedpaying close attention to political talk radio, 36.3 percent some attention, and only6.0 percent reported paying "not much attention..." to political talk radio.
Listeners were not socially peripheral according to the San Diego data. Whencomparing non- listeners to listeners, and to listeners who also reported calling talkhosts, talking to others about something they had heard or taking some actionregarding something that they had heard, few systematic differences were apparentby gender, marital status, or age. Men were slightly more likely to listen, act, or callthan women (%2= 10.9, P< .05). Non-listeners tended to be less well educated (Fuss*= 6.27, P< .001) and lower in income (F(4,4z» = 4.09, P< .001) than listeners. Meaneducation, income, and length of residence increased as listeners became moreactive. No statistically significant differences in age, length of time living in theneighborhood, race-ethnicity or marital status were apparent among political talkradio audience segments.
Social Psychological Variables
It follows from research concerning political involvement and participation(Conway, 1985; Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Schlozman, Lehman, Brady, & Nie,1993) that political, social, and behavioral correlates of participation would alsocharacterize listeners who are exposed to political talk radio. According to our logic,more active political talk radio listeners should also be characterized by highermean levels of variables otherwise associated with political involvement. A series ofmeasures that have been used to indicate political cognition, social cognition, andsocial behavior in other studies of political involvement and participation were usedto test these hypotheses.
Political Cognition. A sense of involvement and feelings of self-efficacy have con-sistently been among the strongest predictors of political participation (Conway,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
508 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/Fall 1997
1985). Thus, greater political involvement and political self-efficacy should charac-terize talk radio listeners who are more active. The situation with respect to parti-sanship and ideology is less certain. We tentatively hypothesized an associationbetween partisan and ideological self-identification consistent with the ideologicalcoloration of the community due to assumed reinforcement of existing views bymass media at a very general level. Thus, it was expected that listeners to conserva-tive, Republican hosts will share similar political ideologies.
Four measures of political efficacy, a measure adapted from the University ofMichigan Survey Research Center, and three measures adapted from Bandura's con-ceptualization of self-efficacy (including the belief and confidence subscales), wereall strongly positively associated with listening to political talk radio. Politicalinvolvement and lower levels of powerlessness were associated with more activepolitical talk radio listeners (P< .001). Post-hoc tests revealed that differences be-tween means in adjacent categories were also statistically significant after correctionfor multiple testing by Scheffe criteria (P> .05). Political cynicism, party identifica-tion, and ideological self-identification were not associated with more active politi-cal talk radio audience participants at a significant level (P> .05). Overall mean dif-ferences among listeners (for the items that were initially significant) remained sta-tistically significant after controls for age, education, and general exposure to televi-sion, newspapers, and radio were applied by multivariate analysis of covariance(Pillais = .14, Fnwoi = 4.85, P< .001).
Social Cognition. Sense of involvement in society and general feelings and beliefsabout oneself, one's social groups, and society have also been linked to political par-ticipation (Conway, 1985). Persons who are less alienated and interact more with oth-ers, are assumed to be more active in politics and other social activities. Persons whohave stronger commitments to social equality and self-constraint might also be expect-ed to be more participatory. The model that we have proposed implies that more activepolitical talk radio listeners will be characterized by lower self-estrangement, norm-lessness, cultural estrangement, authoritarianism, need-determined restraint, contextu-al aging, and to higher faith in people, belief in social equality, and individualism.
The portrait of social cognition among talk radio listeners was considerably lesssupportive of hypotheses than those related to political cognition. Political talk radioexposure was associated with greater faith in people, lower authoritarianism, lowercontextual aging, and higher mean individualism (P< .05).'Self-estrangement, norm-lessness, cultural estrangement, social equality, and value restraint were not associ-ated at a statistically significant level (P> .05). When age, education, political inter-est, and exposure to television, newspapers, and radio were controlled by analysisof covariance, only individualism was significantly associated (P< .05) and faith inpeople not quite significantly associated with political talk involvement (P< .054).Differences among listener groups were not significant once age, education, politi-cal interest, and exposure to television, newspapers, and radio were controlled bymultivariate analysis of covariance (Pillais = .05, Fd8,898) = 1.36, P< .141).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hofstetter, Gianos/POLITICAL TALK RADIO 509
Table 1 .
Social Psychological Correlates of Political Talk Radio.
Political Cognition:11
NES Efficacy
Political Self-Efficacy
(Efficacy)-Belief
(Efficacy)-Confidence
Political Cynicism
Powerlessness
Political Involvement
Party Identification
Political Ideology
Political Talk Radio
Classification2
Non-
ListenersfaJ
1.76
24.1
0.39
33.86
2.09
2.19
2.56
3.93
2.9
Listen &
Ja\k(b)
1.92
32.91
0.53
41.02
2.11
2.08
2.91
3.82.99
Act&
Ca\\(c)
2.16
47.89
0.67
55.08
2.05
1.89
3.29
3.85
2.83
ANOVA
P<
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.590
0.001
0.001
0.778
0.493
MANCOVA
P<
0.024
0.001
0.001
0.015
0.352
0.019
0.001
0.562
0.249
Groups
ab,ac,bc
ab,ac,bc
ab,ac,bc
ab,ac,bc
ac,bc
ab,ac,bc
Social Cognition:
Faith in People
Self-Estrangement
Normlessness
Cultural Estrangement
Social Equality
Authoritarianism
Individualism
Value Restraint
Contextual Aging
2.30
2.96
2.61
2.99
2.93
2.88
2.61
2.49
2.21
2.28
3.04
2.67
2.85
2.94
2.72
2.62
2.42
2.20
2.32
3.12
2.66
2.88
2.96
2.76
2.73
2.39
2.06
0.5020.001
0.322
0.068
0.781
0.011
0.085
0.154
0.001
0.054
0.983
0.266
0.306
0.533
0.242
0.019
0.514
0.134
ac
ab
ac,bc
Social Behavior:
Social Interaction1 2.62 2.56 2.80 0.382 0.386
•Numbers are mean scores for items/scales. Probabilities associated with analyses of variance (ANOVA) and foranalyses of covariance (MANCOVA) are presented in the columns labeled "P<." Item contrasts were computedusing one-way analysis of variance and Scheffe criteria for multiple testing. Coding for scales was scored so thathigher scores indicate larger amounts of what is measured by the composite. The column labeled groups indicateswhich contrasts were statistically significant (P<.05) according to the Scheffe procedures for multiple testing.Scales were formed by computing the mean of composite items. Detailed information concerning scale items andreferences for scales are ava (able from the senior author on request.'Differences in the set of political cognition items among groups were statistically significant after controlling for age,educational attainment, political interest, and exposure to overall television newspapers, and radio by multivariateanalysis of covariance, P/7/a/s=.14, finm=4.85, P<.001, but not in social cognition items, P/7/a/s=.O5, fimw=1.36,P<.141, despite power estimated at .88 for this analysis.'This scale was formed by computing the mean interaction reported with a series of significant others. See themethodological appendix, available from the senior author on request, for specific items.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
510 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/Fall 1997
Social Interaction. Finally, people who are more active in society, who meet withothers, belong to groups, and participate actively in groups are more likely to par-ticipate in politics than those who are not as active (Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba,Schlozman, Lehman, Brady, & Nie, 1993). It is assumed that people who listen topolitical talk radio are more likely to be members of other groups which are politi-cally active. The argument also implies that social interaction will be greater amongmore active political talk radio participants.
The association between talk radio exposure and social interaction with otherssupport the hypothesis. More active listeners were more likely to engage in socialinteraction, albeit in a curvilinear way. Listeners who called and took an action weremore active than non-listeners and talk radio callers. However, differences in socialinteraction among the listener groups may have been a spurious result of other vari-ables, since they were not statistically significant once age, education, political inter-est, and television, newspaper, and radio exposure were controlled by analysis ofcovariance (P> .05).
Political Participation and Attention to Public Affairs in Media
Participation. Measures of political participation speak directly to the issue ofpolitical talk radio and differential participation among different types of listeners.Paying attention to political messages in mass and interpersonal media exposure isalso a strong predictor of political participation (Conway, 1985). All indicators ofpolitical participation and attention to public affairs in mass media were consistent-ly, clearly, and positively associated with political talk radio audience involvement(P < .05). Consistently, listeners who were more actively engaged with political talkradio were also more likely to participate in politics.
Item participation generally increased with adjacent increases in political talkinvolvement in accord with the hypotheses. However, once age, education, politi-cal interest, and exposure to television, newspapers, and radio were controlled, lowfrequency participation in demonstrations, expressed agreement with law breakers,and attention to politics and public affairs in newspapers were no longer signifi-cantly related to talk radio involvement (P> .05).
These singular participation findings were replicated for the composite total par-ticipation scale, a more reliable overall indicator of political participation than sin-gle items. Differences in participation items among the talk audiences remained sta-tistically significant once age, education, political interest, and exposure to televi-sion, newspapers, and radio were controlled by multivariate analysis of covariance(Pillais = .13, F(22,294) = 3.13, P< .001), and differences in the participation compos-ite scale also remained statistically significant after controls were applied by analy-sis of covariance (Fasasi = 26.33, P < .001).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hofstetter, Gianos/POLITICALTALK RADIO 511
Table 2.
Political Participation and Attention to Politics in Media by
Political Talk Radio Category.
Political Talk Radio
Category'
Political Cognition:1"
Non-
Listeners fo)
Listen & Act&
Call/y
ANOVA
P<
MANCOVA
P< Croups
Voting National Elections
Voting Local Elections
Encourage Voting
Work for Candidate
Neighborhood Croup
Work with Others
Contact Officials
Sign Petitions
Demonstrations
Argue about Policy
Agree with Lawbreakers
Participation Total Scorec
2.60
2.13
1.51
1.04
1.19
1.23
1.2
1.67
1.1
1.32
1.18
1.47
2.982.451.92
1.08
1.24
1.4
1.23
1.93
1.11
1.56
1.39
1.66
3.36
3.04
2.58
1.5
1.75
1.72
1.65
2.3
1.3
1.88
1.43
2.08
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.001
.0290
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.063
0.035
0.103
0.001
ab,ac,bc
ab,ac,b
ab,ac,bc
ac,bc
ac,bc
ac;bc
ac,bc
ab,ac,bc
ac,bc
ac,bc
ab,ac
ab,ac,bc
Attention to Politics in:d
TelevisionNewspapers
Conversations
Radio
Attention in Media Total"
2.08
22.08
1.76
1.99
2.29
2.31
2.36
2.22.28
2.69
2.52.66
2.58
2.67
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.146
0.06
0.001
0.001
ab,ac,bc
ab,acab,ac,bc
ab,ac,bc
ab,ac,bc
'Numbers are mean scores for items/scales. Probabilities associated with analyses of variance (ANOVA) and foranalyses of covariance (MANCOVA) are presented in the columns labeled "?<." Item contrasts were computedusing one-way analysis of variance and Scheffe criteria for multiple testing. Specific item wording is available fromthe senior author on request. Participation and attention summary scales were computed by summing componentitems (the preceding four media items, and the preceding 11 participation items).'Differences among groups in political participation items were statistically significant after controlling for age,educational attainment, political interest, and exposure to overall television, newspapers, and radio by multivari-ate analysis of covariance, P/7/a/s=.13, fej»=3.13, Pc.001.'Differences among groups in the political participation total scale were statistically significant, fi«2si=26.33,P<.001, after controlling for age, educational attainment, political interest, and exposure to overall television,newspapers, and radio by analysis of covariance.•"Differences attention to politics in mass media items among groups were statistically significant, after controllingfor age, educational attainment, political interest, and exposure to overall television, newspapers, and radio bymultivariate analysis of covariance, Pillais=.O8, F(8,868)=4.51, P<.001.'Differences in attention to media total scale were statistically significant, fiw«)=8.10, P<.001, after controlling forage, educational attainment, political interest, and exposure to overall television, newspapers, and radio by analy-sis of covariance.Attention to Politics In Communication Media. Attentiveness to public affairs in television, news-paper, radio content, and interpersonal conversations was strongly associated with more active political talk radioaudience types (P< .001). The greater the level of listener involvement, the greater the level of exposure to pub-lic affairs in each medium. The same pattern was found for the composite index of paying attention to public affairsin mass media. With the exception of newspapers, differences among radio audience categories for each analysiswere also significant after age, education, political interest, and exposure to television, newspapers, and radiowere controlled by multivariate analysis of covariance [Pillais - .08, W«x = 4.51, P< .001), and by analysis ofcovariance (Fa.m - 8.10, P< .001).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
512 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/Fall 1997
Discussion
More active political talk radio listeners have been characterized by greater expo-sure to politics in communication media (Hofstetter, Smith, & Zari, 1997), by per-sonal, social, political beliefs associated with mainstream political participation, andby attention to politics in communication media. In this sample we also found talkradio listeners were typically of higher socioeconomic status.
Many differences among talk radio audience groups remained even after rigorousstatistical controls for demographic, political, and general media exposure variableswere applied. Inspection of means suggest that the relationship between involve-ment with talk radio and these variables is monotonic so that the greater the politi-cal talk radio involvement the greater the mean participation and media exposure,and the stronger the beliefs and attitudes associated with political participation.
Political talk radio exposure is associated with political resources that typicallyempower persons to render independent, informed judgements about issues and maythereby reduce susceptibility to persuasive appeals. Inferences of causality must awaitmore rigorous experimental studies of media effects (Bartels, 1996). However, data inthis study look like what would be expected if political talk radio enhanced politicalparticipation and associated variables among more involved listener groups: the mostinvolved talk radio listeners appear to be active listeners who are not simply passive-ly consuming the host's view points, but appear to be fully capable to make criticaljudgments about politics perhaps stimulated by what has been heard on talk radio butfully independent of whatever the host may advocate. Statistical controls of the majorplausible alternative explanations for the data also support the causal interpretation.
The argument should not necessarily be interpreted to imply that political talkradio has no effect on political information, images, or political mobilization. Themedium probably engages many mechanisms, including priming, agenda setting,incidental learning, political mobilization, the construction of reality, and others thatare associated with mass media (Ansolabehere et al., 1993; Weaver, 1996;Hollander, 1996). Understanding the effects of political talk radio is a complexenterprise, requiring observation of the ways and conditions under which individu-als use the medium in conjunction with the interpersonal and community contextsin which communication occurs (Graber, 1989).
Zaller (1992) suggests that general political involvement, associated with the greaterknowledge, political sophistication, and critical acumen of the politically interestedincreases the likelihood of exposure to a variety of messages in mass communication,but that these characteristics may also prepare citizens to sample which content theywill accept and which they will reject. Sampling is contingent on the informationalresources, immediate situation, personal interests and perceived relevance of messages(Graber, 1988) The apparent independence of those most involved with political talkradio is consistent with Zaller's and Graber's models of information processing.
Our findings imply that the political talk audience is not highly dependent on themedium for their political information and insights, since more politically active per-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hofstetter, Gianos/POLITICAL TALK RADIO 513
sons typically seek information from many sources and are generally better informedabout politics than others (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Dalton, 1996; Joslyn, 1984).It appears that political talk radio was used for many different reasons in addition topurposive information seeking, such as parasocial interaction and evaluating alter-native views to sharpen alternative notions of reality.
Our findings also imply that politically involved persons who reside in a commu-nity dominated by conservative political talk radio hosts may listen due to their inter-est and involvement in politics in ideologically indiscriminate ways, especially whenthey have nothing better to do as is common among automobile commuters. (Listeningwhile commuting was the modal exposure situation among our respondents.) Interestin public events and need for diversion may outweigh intellectual or ideological dis-agreements and accounts for the fact that they use the medium more to pass time thanto seek information. Experiencing political talk radio passively, as is typical of expo-sure to broadcast media (Rubin 1984), people may "tune in" and "tune out" casuallyas their environment allows or as something in a broadcast captures their attention(Graber, 1989). It may be that the outrageousness of many talk show hosts, especiallyoutrageous comments that violate norms of political or social propriety, are experi-enced as humorous or even cathartic, despite disagreement with the host.
Given appropriate political contexts involving explosive situations, political talkradio might facilitate mobilization of sufficient numbers of activists to wreak havoc invarious policy arenas. Issues that engage passions by striking resonant chords, such ashealth care and religion, can be used to mobilize persons susceptible to appeals of thereligious right or persons who feel isolated from political and social elites (Page &Tannenbaum, 1996). But the fallout from these situations is also likely to stimulatebroader, more participatory publics and to constrain the smaller, more intense and rad-ical segments. Episodic disruptions of school boards or city councils by surreptitiousambush in small, relatively homogenous communities may be easy targets for some inthe short run. But such disruptions tend to be short lived when the immediate situa-tion is resolved or when more participatory political talk radio segments are alsomobilized once they cease to find real world consequences of talk forums amusing.
Talk radio listeners can be mobilized in the right set of circumstances but thiscould be an infrequent event. It is likely that the influence of flamboyant politicaltalk radio hosts is blown far out of proportion to their actual power to move publicopinion except in unusual situations when hosts strike an already resonant chord(Page & Tannenbaum, 1996). One is reminded of the long gone and unlamentedSenator Joseph McCarthy, who terrified liberals and moderates primarily becauseother political actors believed his support among the electorate to be much strongerthan the empirical reality. However, in one media rich large American city, no lessbeset by political, social, and economic problems than many others, political talkradio appears to be more efficacious as a mechanism for fun and frivolity by thepolitically attentive than for political engagement and manipulation by malevolentor mischievous talk hosts.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
514 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/Fall 1997
Note
1 Exact item wording, item statistics, and scale statistics, including reliabilities for multiple-item scales areavailable from the senior author on request in a methodological appendix.
References
Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demo-bilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829-838.
Ansolabehere, S., Behr, R., & lyengar, S. (1993). The media game: American politics in the tele-vision age. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Armstrong, C. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journalof Communication, 39, 84-94.
Avery, R. K., & Ellis, D. G. (1978). Patterns of communication on talk radio. Journal ofBroadcasting, 22, 5-17.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bartels, L. M. (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. AmericanPolitical Science Review, 87, 267-285.
Bierig, J., & Dimmick, J. (1979). The late night radio talk show as interpersonal communica-tion. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 92-96.
Broadcasting. (August 27, 1990). Talk radio networks pursue role of AM 'White Night',Broadcasting, 119, pp. 40-42
Carlson, P. (April 25, 1993). The heart of talkness: One man's fearless journey into the jungleof American talk shows. Washington Post, p. WMAG19.
Conway, M. M. (1985). Political participation in the United States. Washington, DC: C. Q.Press.
Crittenden, J. (1971). Democratic functions of the open mike radio forum. Public OpinionQuarterly, 35, 200-210.
Dalton, R. J. (1996). Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industri-al societies. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.
Davis, R. (July, 1996). Political talk radio as a public issue discussion forum. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, B.C.,Canada.
Frey, J. H. (1983). Survey research by telephone. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Graber, D. A. (1988). Processing the news: How people tame the information tide. New York:
Longman.Graber, D. A. (1989). Mass media and American politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Graber, D. A. (1993). Making campaign news user friendly: The lesson of 1992 and beyond.
American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 328-336.Grunig, J. E. 1989. Publics, audiences and market segments: Segmentation principles for cam-
paigns. In C. T. Salmon (Ed.), Information campaigns: Balancing social values and socialchange (pp. 199-228). Newbury Park: Sage.
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent. New York, NY: Pantheon.Herbst, S. (1995). On electronic public space: Talk shows in theoretical perspective. Political
Communication, 12, 263-274.Hofstetter, C. R., Donovan, M. C., Klauber, M. R., Cole, A., Huie, C. J., & Yuasa, T. (1994).
Political talk radio: A stereotype reconsidered. Political Research Quarterly, 47, 467-479.Hofstetter, C. R., Smith, J. T., & Zari, G. M. (April, 1997). The political talk radio experience.
Paper presented at the 1997 Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting.Chicago, Illinois.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hofstetter, Gianos/POLITICAL TALK RADIO 515
Hollander, B. A. (1996). Talk radio: Predictors of use and effects on attitudes about government.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 102-113.
Joslyn, R. (1984). Mass media and elections. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Jost, K. (April, 1994). Talk show democracy. Congressional Quarterly Researcher, 361-384.Katz, J. L., (March, 1991). The power of talk, Governing, pp. 38-42.Meehan, E. R.. (1984). Towards a third vision of an information society. Media Culture and
Society, 6, 257-271.Mondak, J. J. (1995). Media exposure and political discussion in U.S. elections. Journal of
Politics, 57, 62-85.Murray, R., & Vedlitz, A.. (1987). Race, socioeconomic status, and voting participation in large
Southern cities. Journal of Politics, 39, 1064-1072.Page, B. I., & Tannenbaum, J. (1996). Populist deliberation and talk radio. Journal of
Communication, 46, 33-44.Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York, NY: Vintage.Prato, L. (1993). Radio opts for talk, news takes a walk. American Journalism Review, 15, 65.Qualter, T. H. (1989). The role of the mass media in limiting the public agenda. In M. Margolis
& G. A. Mauser (Eds.), Manipulating public opinion (pp. 82-91). Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.
Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The caseof the selling of the Pentagon. American Political Science Review, 70, 409-432.
Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy inAmerica. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal ofCommunication, 34, 67-77.
Schement, J. R., Belay, G., & Jeong, D. Y. (1993). Information society, In J. Krieger (Ed.), TheOxford companion to politics of the world (pp. 425-428). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.
Surlin, S. J. (1986). Uses of Jamaican talk radio. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,30, 459-466.
Tramer, H., & Jeffres, L. (1983). Talk radio-forum and companion. Journal of Broadcasting, 27,297-300.
Traugott, M., Berinsky, A., Cramer, K., Howard, M., Mayer, R., Schuckman, H. P., Tewksbury,D., & Young, M. (July, 1996). The impact of talk radio on its audience. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Canada.
Turow, J. (1974). Talk show radio as interpersonal communication. Journal of Broadcasting, 18,171-179.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equal-ity. New York: Harper & Row.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993). Citizen activity: Who participates?What do they say? American Political Science Review, 87, 303-318.
Weaver, D. H. (1996). What voters learn about the media. Annals of the American Academyof Political and Social Science, 546, 34-47.
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Zukin, C. (1981). Mass communication and public opinion. In D. Nimmo & K. Sanders (Eds.),Handbook of political communication (pp. 244-261). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
14:
59 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
