Zondag met Lubach: makes breaking news whole again?
The effects of political satire on political interest and political efficacy and the role of perceived funniness in this relationship
Sophie Calicher 10648763 Master thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Jasper van de Pol February 3rd, 2017
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank everyone that contributed to the development of my thesis. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Jasper van de Pol. His guidance was essential during
the process of writing my thesis. Second, I would like to thank all participants who contributed to this study. Finally, I would like to thank my boyfriend, friends and family for
Abstract
It is argued that people are becoming less informed about political issues, due to the overload of information on the Internet and digital television, which makes it easy to avoid political messages. Satirical shows provide a new approach to make complex issues and politics more accessible. This study aims to provide insight into the effects of political satire on political internal efficacy and political interest. In addition, the role of perceived funniness is taken into account to assess whether it has an influence on the relationship between political satire on political interest and political satire on political internal efficacy. An experiment (N=116) shows that there is no relationship between satire and political interest and political efficacy. Moreover, there is no question of moderation in the relationship between political satire and political interest and political internal efficacy. This implies that satire might not contribute as much to democracy as initially assumed. Finally, the theoretical, methodological and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Introduction
On the 20th of September 2016 the Dutch “Prince’s Day” received more attention than in previous years. Not because this day represents a new parliament year, but because the Dutch King gives a speech as regards to the key matters of the government policy for the coming year. Some might expect that the Dutch population is rather politically involved. However, the case is that it has little to do with their involvement concerning the content of the King’s speech. The Dutch satirical television show Lucky TV is known for its caricatures of the King and his family. The King and his family are the main characters and are presented as a typical Dutch family from The Hague with strong dialect. Nowadays, every public action of the King reminds people of Lucky TV. One of the techniques to make topics with a heavy political load more accessible is called political satire (Baumgartner & Morris, 2008).
However, recent studies show that the Dutch political interest is decreasing. This is shown by the fact that less people join political parties and that during elections less young people go out to vote (De Blok et al., 2016; Aalberts, 2006; Delli Carpini, 2000). Thereby, television is still considered one of the most important tools for the public to gain political information (Kaye & Johnson, 2016). Political satirical shows become increasingly popular in the Netherlands. As a result of this evident decrease in political interest and the rise of
popularity of political satirical shows, scholars did several attempts to understand the effects of political satire.
Prior studies on the effects of political satire in television shows have various results (Holbert et al., 2011; Polk, Young & Holbert 2009). Some scholars have their concerns and argue that humour can make people more cynical towards politics (Baumgarter & Morris, 2006; Hart & Hartelius, 2007). Other scholars, on the other hand, argue that people are becoming less informed about political issues due to the overload of information on the Internet and digital television, which makes it easy to avoid political messages. Satirical
shows therefore provide a new approach to make complex issues and politics more accessible. Consequently, it is discussed that political satirical shows play an important role in our
society. Although the main intention of political satire is to make people laugh it is also considered an effective way to put politics and politicians in a critical light. By focusing on a more inattentive public research shows that political satire contributes to democratic
citizenship (Baumgarter & Morris, 2006; Becker, 2011; Bennett & Lyengar, 2008; Boukes, 2015).
Previous research on the effects of political satire suggest to shed light on the
differences of individuals to examine when people believe that a satirical television show can provide them with a better understanding of the political system and increase their
engagement in political activities. (Haugtvedt & Wegener, 1994; Craig, Niemi, & Silver, 1990; Niemi, Craig, & Mattel, 1991). This phenomenon is called political internal efficacy, an individuals’ self-perception of their ability to engage and participate in politics in our
democracy (Holbert, Lambe, Dudo, & Carlton, 2007). Therefore, the direct relationship between political satire and political internal efficacy will be examined.
Still, there are differences in perceived funniness of a satirical message. People mainly consider a satirical message funny when the key message is not contradictory to their pre-existing beliefs (Baum, 2003). Whether a message is perceived as funny is also explained by the unexpected nature of surprising views towards certain issues (Holbert & Young, 2013). In order for a satirical message to work it must meet certain requirements. At present, there is a lack of research to the precise relationship between political satire on political efficacy and political interest in Dutch context.
So far, prior studies on the effects of political satire mainly focused on American political satire shows, such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. This study focuses on a Dutch political satire show that is called Zondag Met Lubach. This show is considered a
successful counterpart of American political satire shows and is known for its creative efforts to inform the public (NOS, 2016). In addition, most studies are aimed at young people instead of the population in general. So far, the direct relationships between political satire on the one hand and political interest and political efficacy on the other hand have not been examined yet. Therefore, this study aims to complement previous research on the effects of political satire on political efficacy in the Netherlands (Boukes et al., 2015; Holbert et al., 2011; Polk, Young & Holbert 2009; LaMarre, Landreville, & Beam, 2009). The following research question aims to bridge the gap in current research:
RQ: How do political satirical messages affect people’s political interest and political efficacy and to what extent are both effects moderated by perceived funniness?
First, the next section provides a theoretical framework by applying and combining previous research of political satire on political efficacy and political interest. Then the differences in perceived funniness will be discussed. The method section will describe which stimulus material will be exposed, how respondents are recruited, what the procedure of the study is and how the concepts are going to be measured. Third, the results will be discussed in order to draw conclusions and to eventually give answer to the research question. Finally, the
implications of this research will be discussed and suggestions are made for future research.
Theoretical framework
In the following paragraphs, the concepts of political satire, political efficacy, political interest and the differences in perceived funniness of political satirical messages will be discussed. The current body of research on political satire is used to formulate hypotheses.
Various studies have conducted research on the effects of political satire on political attitudes (Boukes et al., 2015; Hoffman & Young, 2011; Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; LaMarre, Landreville, & Beam, 2009). Notable to these studies is that they are mainly focusing on the effects of American comedy talk shows. A show similar to American comedy talk shows, and in particular television shows as the Daily Show, is Dutch satirical talk show: Zondag met Lubach. The presenter of this Show – Arjan Lubach – is known for his creative efforts to inform the general public about political issues (NOS, 2016).
This study is aimed at examining the extent to which political satire contributes to political efficacy. In most studies political efficacy is divided into two segments: internal political efficacy and external political efficacy. Internal political efficacy is defined as: “Beliefs about one’s own competence to understand, and to participate effectively in politics” (Niemi, Craig, & Mattel, p.1407, 1991). External political efficacy refers to the extent to which citizens believe that their demands are heard by political institutions (Converse, 1972; Balch, 1974). Since this study is focusing on the degree of confidence that citizens have to participate in politics, this study specifically focuses on internal political efficacy.
Prior research of political satire on political efficacy shows various results of the effects of political satire on internal political efficacy. Baumgarter & Morris (2006) found that people who viewed a clip of The Daily Show have gained a higher level of political internal efficacy, while the people who viewed a clip of The Colbert Report had lower levels of political internal efficacy. First, a possible explanation could be that the participants’ humor cannot be considered homogeneous. Furthermore, The Colbert show is known for its unique way of mocking traditional political television shows and is considered ‘one of a kind’. The effects of this show might have taken an unexpected turn, since they found that mocking president Bush resulted in more support for Bush. According to these findings it is noted that these viewers were confused by the content of the show and behaved the opposite than
initially intended. Though, since this study was focusing on The Daily Show it was noted that the presenter of this show convinced the audience repeatedly that all politicians and political elitists are to blame for their lack of understanding, which is reasonably shortsighted.
Hoffman & Young (2011) took a closer look into the practices of satire by examining the differences of parody, satire and late night comedy on political participation with political efficacy as mediator. Their findings demonstrate that these different types of satirical television shows have different effects on political efficacy; parody and satire positively affects someone’s level of political efficacy, whereas late night comedy does not. These findings suggest that political satire contributes to political internal efficacy, but that
differences can be found on whether the audience perceives the message as funny. The degree of perceived funniness of the satirical message will be clarified later in this article.
Additionally, Holbert et al. (2007) argue that the effects of political satire require a specific connection between the intentions of the satirist and the way the receiver interprets this. As Knight (2004) describes: “The addressee and the addresser must agree that the author’s imaginative attack and the reader’s actual condemnation are justified by the values articulated or implied by the satire” (p. 41). In other words, the underlying political message and the satirical message must be consistent with pre-existing attitudes of the receiver. Therefore, the use of satire will be more effective when people agree with the underlying political message. Moreover, in agreement with the findings of the research of Baumgarter & Morris (2006), this study found that people who have low internal political efficacy are more affected by satire than people with high internal political efficacy. It is thus expected that comedy affect people most when they agree with the satirists’ underlying message and when their political internal efficacy is low.
In order to understand the mechanism of the effect of a satirical message on political efficacy it is of interest to clarify this process by means of the Elaboration Likelihood model
(Nabi, & Moyer-Gusé, Byrne, 2007; Polk, Young, & Holbert, 2009). According to the Elaboration Likelihood model (ELM), there are two routes how messages are being processed. First, there is the central route and this rout takes place when the viewer is motivated, and he or she has enough knowledge to process the information. Second, if the viewer finds it is hard to understand or feels irrelevant to the issue, he or she will process the information through the peripheral route. The peripheral route is characterized by heuristic cues, which concern the attractiveness and emotional cues of the information. (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). Nabi et al. (2007) argue that people watch parody and satirical shows to be entertained, which means that people are motivated to look at shows that entertain them and make them laugh. Additionally, when people have knowledge about the topic it is expected, according to the ELM model, that the audience will process the message through the central route and are more likely to counter argue the underlying message. However, when people are motivated but have little knowledge it is expected, according to the ELM model, that the audience will be influenced based on heuristic cues. Moreover, satirical television shows are mostly narratives. Therefore, it is argued that the audience will more likely focus on the narrative rather than scrutinize the presenter’s arguments, although they have high knowledge on the discussed topic (Slater & Rouner, 2002). In contrast with the outcomes of the ELM model, it is expected that the more people are engrossed into the narrative; the less likely they will counter argue the arguments and subsequently accept the underlying political message. This will add to their existing political knowledge, which in turn will lead to an increase of their political internal efficacy.
In short, satire provides an accessible way for people who initially avoid political television shows to keep abreast of politics and political issues. Without investing a lot of effort and time this approach ensures that this audience too feel like they can understand and participate in politics (Hmielowski, Holbert, & Lee, 2011; Young & Tisinger, 2006). The
results as discussed above indicate that it is of interest to examine the differences in
processing news items both with and without a satirical approach. Based on these previous findings it is expected that political satire will increase an individual’s level of internal political efficacy. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: Political satire has a positive effect on political internal efficacy.
Effects of political satire on political interest
As new media and the increase in television channels offer an unprecedented amount of content, the political uninterested audience is more likely to avoid political news while the political interested audience is increasingly learning about politics. This development raises the question of how this affects citizen involvement, since political interest is considered one of the fundamental factors of political behaviour, which in turn predicts a well functioning democracy (Prior, 2010).
Research to the level of political interest among Dutch citizens consistently shows that the level of people’s political interest is decreasing (De Blok et al., 2016; CBS, 2014; CBS, 2015; Aalberts, 2004). A recent study suggests that the majority (63,2%) of Dutch youngsters between 18 and 34 years old have no interest in politics, whereas only 39,3% of the people older than 54 years old indicates that they are not interested in politics (De Blok et al., 2016). Furthermore, a decrease is shown in the number of people who obtain their political
information through traditional media channels. This is partly explained by the fact that they tend to avoid political messages because of their lack of political interest (Aalberts, 2004). Consequently, a downward spiral might emerge where people are getting less informed about politics, which in turn makes them less interested in politics (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008).
difficulties understanding political issues through traditional media because they are presented in an uninteresting and complex way. Prior (2005) argues that even though a news audience that is exposed unintentionally to political news with little political interest may not be able to take up as much as an audience that intentionally looks at political news, yet they found that unintentional exposure to political news too is effective. In addition, even an audience that prefers entertainment television take up basic political knowledge when they accidentally tune in on political television. When someone’s political knowledge increases, it is more likely that someone’s political interest will increase. Satirical shows therefore provide a new approach to make complex issues and politics more accessible and understandable.
Previous research on political satire shows that humour has a positive effect on political knowledge and political interest (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Baym, 2005). Moreover, Aalberts (2004) conducted a case study to examine the levels of political interest after watching Dutch satirical television show Kopspijkers. This television show presents social issues and current affairs, while the creators of the show implement their stances on the issue, presented with a comical twist, which created great popularity among Dutch citizens. The findings of this case study show that there was an increase in political interest and political knowledge after participants watched episodes of Kopspijkers.
According to these discussed results it is suggested that as people become more informed about political issues, they obtain more political information, which leads to an increase in political interest. Therefore, it is expected that political satire will positively affect someone’s political interest. Thus, from this the following hypothesis is derived:
H2: Political satire has a positive effect on political interest.
Political satire is defined as: “A participatory act in which the public deconstruct a satirical message by using existing knowledge, often acquired through other media texts, and
reconstruct the message to individually come to an understanding of what they see” (Boukes, 2015, p. 723). Which indicates that the public interprets a political satirical message by using existing knowledge, which they often gained through other media channels, to form their own reconstruction to the message they were exposed to.
Yet, the nature of humour is hard to determine since not everyone shares the same kind of humour. Boukes et al. (2015) argue that the message is only perceived as funny if it does not invalidate pre-existing attitudes towards political stances. The perceived funniness of a satirical message relates to whether people understand the joke and to what extend the message does not bring someone’s initial views towards a political issue down. In other words, the joke should not be considered as a threat (Meyer, 2000). However, it could also be the case that people find it funny because they just find it unusual and weird (Nabi et al., 2007).
Becker (2014) clarifies the differences in perceived funniness in political satire by applying the disposition theory: “The disposition theory of humor posits that the intensity of the response to humorous presentations critically depends upon the respondent’s affective disposition toward the protagonist involved. Specifically, it is proposed that humour appreciation is facilitated when the respondent feels antipathy or resentment toward disparaged protagonists and impaired when he feels sympathy or liking for these
protagonists” (2014, p. 138). According to this theory, people will have greater appreciation for the made joke if it is meant for someone that he or she dislikes instead of someone who he or she likes.
The findings of the research by Cantor & Zillman (1972) confirm this theory but also show that humour can be too harsh, which in turn negatively affects the extent to which
someone considers the satirical joke as funny. Other scholars became curious and wanted to know whether satire mainly affects political behaviour when the jokes are aimed at someone else or if it could also affect political behaviour when the public themselves are targets (Colleta, 2009; LaMarre, Landreville, & Beam, 2009). Colletta (2009) studied the exposure effects of American satirical television show The Colbert Report and found that both
Democratic as Republican-leaning viewers indicated to perceive the show as funny. Since the show is considered Republican-leaning these findings provide evidence that both the targeted audience and the audience that was not targeted perceive satirical jokes as funny. A possible explanation could be that although the jokes were aimed at Republicans, the jokes were not considered a threat (Meyer, 2000).
In addition, the resource allocation theory suggests that when people perceive the message as funny, this so-called effort of perceived funniness wipes away their ability to thoroughly evaluate the underlying political message. This theory thus suggests that when people get the joke and perceive it as funny they are also less likely to counter argue the message and more likely to accept the political message. This will add to their existing political knowledge, which in turn will lead to an increase of their political internal efficacy (Polk, Young, & Holbert, 2009).
However, scholars share various thoughts towards the inclusion of humour in political news. According to Young (2008) existing research seems to indicate that: “Humour fosters some kind of cognitive elaboration but hinders scrutiny of underlying message arguments” (Young, 2008, p. 212). She states that humour is too distractive in order to critically assess a message. In contrast with the argument in the previous paragraph, where humour ensures little counter arguing, Young (2008) argues that humour distracts in such a way that people do not recognise the political message. Yet, other researches have proved this finding wrong and found that people learn effectively by means of humour.
As discussed in the previous paragraphs it is argued that a satirical message has some requirements in order for people to agree and accept the political message, which in turn increases political interest and political internal efficacy. First, the message needs to be in line with prior attitudes and pose no threat (Boukes, 2015; Meyer, 2000). Second, with less prior knowledge it will be more likely for people to adopt a message since they have less ability to counter argue the message (Aalberts, 2004). Also, according to the ELM model it is expected that people with little knowledge will be influenced more by heuristic cues like humour. Finally, satire provides an accessible way for people who initially avoid political television shows to keep abreast of politics and political issues. This approach ensures that people who do not invest a lot of effort and time in the matter can too feel like they are able to understand and participate in politics (Hmielowski, Holbert, & Lee, 2011; Young & Tisinger, 2006). According to these discussed results it is expected that when people perceive the message as funnier they understand and feel like to participate effectively in politics more. From this the following hypothesis is drawn:
H3: The effect of political satire on political internal efficacy will be stronger when perceived funniness is high than when it is low.
Moreover, since perceived funniness can be explained by someone’s prior political knowledge and attitudes it is assumed that people with little or without political knowledge have less political interest than people with particular political knowledge (Aalberts, 2004). But even though individuals have little interest it is argued that people still learn through political satire (Prior, 2005). Therefore, it is expected that a higher level of perceived funniness leads to more likeliness that they will adopt the political message, which in turn leads to a higher level political interest. Hence, the following hypothesis is drawn:
H4: The effect of political satire on political interest will be stronger when perceived funniness is high than when it is low.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Method Stimulus material
To ultimately answer the research question a one factor between subjects design was conducted. This experiment exposed participants to a satirical clip originated from Zondag met Lubach about the Zwarte Pieten issue. One of the most important children’s holidays in The Netherlands is Sinterklaas. Sinterklaas, not to be mistaken for Santa Claus, travels every November with his helps – Zwarte Pieten (Black Pete’s) – to the Netherlands to check if all children behaved that year. The helps have black skins because they have to climb through chimneys to bring gifts to each house. The issue considering the racial offense of the helpers
being dark skinned is an on going debate in the Netherlands. Differences between left wing parties and right wing parties are evident. Parties such as the left-liberal party D66 strive for adjustments, while right wing parties such as the VVD call these adjustments “the murder of a national holiday” (NOS, 2016). The choice for this topic is based on the fact that this issue concerns almost everyone in the Netherlands and is not limited to discussions on social media, but politicians take clear stances on the issue and are actively involved.
Procedure
This study contained two conditions. In one condition the participants were exposed to an existing clip selected from an episode of Pauw on October 24 2016. VVD chairman Halbe Zijlstra is one of the guests on the show elaborating about his stances on the Zwarte Pieten issue. In the second condition participants were exposed to the same clip but with a satirical approach originated from an episode of Zondag met Lubach of October 30 2016.
The clips in both conditions are nearly identical. However, the satirical clip mounted the original clip from Pauw in a slightly different way what caused a different order of
judgements. Also, the satirical clip of Zondag met Lubach added comical tunes and their own commentary in-between, which caused a more sarcastic approach towards VVD chairman Halbe Zijlstra’s stances on the Zwarte Pieten issue.
The participants are randomly assigned to each one of the conditions. After being exposed to the clips the participants are asked to fill in a survey where political interest, internal political efficacy and perceived funniness will be measured.
Respondents
The participants were mainly recruited through online distribution of the survey on Facebook and by e-mail. Both friends and family were sent a link where they could fill in the survey on
Qualtrics. A convenient sample is drawn, as they fit the criteria of the target group and are easy to reach, which provides a high ability to participate in this study. The participants’ age ranged from 20 to 66 years old with an average age of 25 years and 63,8% of the sample was female. The median educational level was University level. In this sample 17,2% indicated to be moderately left wing and 26,7% indicated to be moderately right wing.
Measurements
Experimental condition Political Satire
Political satire is used as stimulus in this research. A short clip will be shown of either a satirical news clip originated from Zondag met Lubach or the original news clip originated from political talk show Pauw.
Dependent variables Political efficacy
Internal political efficacy is measured by means of four statements measured on a seven-point scale. Participants were asked to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with the statements: “I consider myself well qualified to participate in politics”, “I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country”, “I feel that I could do as good a job in public office as most other people” and “I think that I am better informed about politics than most other people” (Derived from the study by Niemi, Craig, & Mattel, 1991). A factor analysis shows that one component is formed (Eigenvalue = 2,71; Explained variance = 67,92%) with a reliability of 0,84. To measure political efficacy the average score of all 4 items will be used (M=4,21, SD=4,80).
Political interest
Political interest is measured by means of a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 is not interested, 4 is neutral and 7 is interested. The items are: “How interested are you in politics?” “How much do you talk about politics in company by others?” “How often do you search for information regarding politics?” A factor analysis shows that one component is formed
(Eigenvalue = 2,16; Explained variance = 72%) with a reliability of 0,80. To measure political interest the average score of all 3 items will be used (M= 4,61, SD= 1,23).
Moderator
Perceived funniness
To measure how funny participants thought the video was to which they were exposed was measured with the response to one statement that was answered on a scale from 0 (not funny) to 7 (funny). The statement is: “How funny would you rate the exposed clip?” (Boukes et al., 2015).
Control variables Political preference
To measure political preference a 10-point scale is used, where 1 is indicated as left wing and 10 is indicated as right wing. The question is: “How left- or right-wing do you consider yourself?”
Gender
Gender is measured by means of two options either man or woman.
Age is measured by means of an open question, where participants are able to answer within a range of the age of 18 and 65.
Education
Education is measured by means of six Dutch educational levels, namely ‘none’, ‘primary school’, ‘vmbo’, ‘MBO’, ‘havo/vwo/gymnasium’, ‘HBO’ and university level. The complete questionnaire can be found in the Appendix.
Analytical strategy
Since both dependent variables are measured by means of a seven-point Likert scale and the experimental condition is established by 0 = news and 1 = satire a linear regression analysis is conducted. In order to include perceived funniness as a moderator, a refined analysis is conducted that allowed to test all hypotheses at once. Since perceived funniness is also measured on a seven-point Likert scale a multiple regression analysis can test every
hypothesis at once in order to see if there are direct effects and to what extent these effects are moderated by perceived funniness.
Results Randomization check
A randomization check is conducted to exclude possible effects of the following variables: education, political preference, gender and age.
A one-way ANOVA shows that education (F(5, 110) = 1,57, p =0,174), political preference (F(7, 108) = 1,41, p =0,210) and age (F(31, 84) = 0,62, p =0,935) are equally divided between the experimental groups. In addition, the experimental groups did not differ with respect to sex (Fisher -exact, p=0,334). These results show that the randomization
succeeded.
Manipulation check
A crosstab shows that 90,9% of all participants indicated the satirical clip as sarcastic and 87,5% of the participants indicated the original news item as not sarcastic.
Also, the majority indicated the satirical clip as not serious (66,7%), while 90,9% of all participants indicated the original news item as serious. Finally, 70% of all participants indicated the satirical clip as entertaining, while 76,6% of all participants indicated the original news item as serious.
In addition, in order to test whether all participants comprehended the exposed manipulation three questions were asked to indicate to what extent they believed the manipulation was (1) sarcastic, (2) serious and (3) amusing. To examine whether the two experimental groups actually answered differently a one-way ANOVA was conducted for each question individually. The ANOVA shows that both groups did significantly differ in their opinion to what extent they indicated the manipulation as sarcastic (F(6, 109) = 7,26, p < 0,005), in their opinion to what extent they indicated the manipulation as serious (F(6, 109) = 6,71, p < 0,005) and in their opinion to what extent they indicated the manipulation as
amusing (F(6, 109) = 2,84, p < 0,005). Hence, these results show that the manipulation succeeded.
Descriptive results
As shown in Table 1 the means for political internal efficacy slightly differs between both conditions, whereby the mean political internal efficacy in condition news is 4,14 and for condition satire the mean political internal efficacy is 4,28 measured on a scale from 1 to 7. The same applies to political interest; only a small difference is noticed. The mean political
interest in condition news is 4,55 and for condition satire this is 4,67 measured on a scale from 1 to 7. However, there is a notable difference between both conditions for perceived funniness. The mean perceived funniness for condition news is 2,95; while in condition satire the mean perceived funniness is 4,17 measured on a scale from 1 to 10. These results suggest that overall the participants indicated to perceive the satire clip funnier than the news clip.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Political Internal Efficacy, Political Interest and Perceived Funniness of Both News and Satire (N = 116)
Minimum Maximum Mean SD
News
Political internal efficacy 1 7 4.14 1.26 Political interest 1 7 4.55 1.18 Perceived funniness 1 10 2.95 1.75
Satire
Political internal efficacy 1 7 4.28 1.13 Political interest 1 7 4.67 1.28
Perceived funniness 1 10 4.17 1.79
To test H1, whether political satire has a positive effect on political internal efficacy, a linear regression analysis is conducted. The linear regression analysis with satire as the independent variable and political internal efficacy as the dependent variable shows that the model is not significant and is therefore not useful to predict political internal efficacy, F(1, 116) = 0,40, p = 0,528. Hence, as shown in Table 2, Model 1 H1 cannot be supported.
Effect on political interest
H2 assumes that political satire has a positive effect on political interest. To test this
hypothesis a linear regression analysis was run. The linear regression analysis with satire as the independent variable and political interest as the dependent variable shows that the model is not significant and is therefore not useful to predict political internal efficacy, F(2
1, 116) = 0,27, p = 0,603. Hence, as shown in Table 3, Model 1 H2 cannot be supported.
Effects of perceived funniness as a moderator
H3 assumes that the effect of political satire on political internal efficacy will be stronger when perceived funniness is high than when it is low. To test H3 a multiple regression
analysis was run. As shown in Table 2, Model 3 there are no significant main effects between condition and political internal efficacy and between perceived funniness and political
internal efficacy. Both main effects and interaction effect are not significant F(3, 115) = 0,66, p = 0,580. These findings indicate that there is no moderation by perceived funniness in the relationship between political satire and political internal efficacy. Thus, H3 cannot be supported.
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables predicting Political Internal Efficacy and the interaction between Political Internal Efficacy and Perceived Funniness (N=116)
Variable Model 1 B SE B Model 2 B SE B Model 3 B SE B Constant 4.28 0.16 4.21 0.11 4.16 0.12 Satire Funniness -0.14 0.22 -0.05 0.06 0.12 0.23 -0.05 0.05 0.12 0.12 Condition x funn. -1.41 0.12 R2 0.01 0.02 F for change in R2 0.23 0.66 * p < .05
H4 assumes that the effect of political satire on political interest will be stronger when
perceived funniness is high than when it is low. To test H4 a multiple regression analysis was run. As shown in Table 3, Model 3 there are no significant main effects between condition and political interest and between perceived funniness and political interest. Both main effects and interaction effect are not significant F(3, 115) = 1,65, p = 0,182. Hence, there is no
moderation by perceived funniness in the relationship between political satire and political internal efficacy. Therefore, H4 cannot be supported.
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables predicting Political Interest and the interaction between Political Interest and Perceived Funniness (N=116)
Variable Model 1 B SE B Model 2 B SE B Model 3 B SE B Constant 4.67 0.16 4.61 0.12 4.52 0.12 Satire Funniness -0.12 0.23 -0.04 0.05 0.12 0.12 -0.05 0.04 0.12 0.12 Condition x funn. -0.26 0.05 R2 0.00 0.04 F for change in R2 0.20 1.65 * p < .05
Conclusion & Discussion
This study aims to provide insight into the effects of political satire on political internal efficacy and political interest. First, the relationship between political satire and political internal efficacy is examined. Second, the relationship between political satire and political interest is examined. Finally, the role of perceived funniness is taken into account to assess whether it has an influence on the relationship between political satire on political internal efficacy and political satire on political interest. In conclusion, it can be stated that no relationship is found between political satire on political internal efficacy and political satire on political interest. Also, the results show that there are no significant interaction effects
political internal efficacy and political interest, despite the differences in means of perceived funniness in both conditions.
First, it was expected that political satire has a positive effect on political internal efficacy. Despite the findings of previous studies (Hoffman & Young, 2011; Baumgarter & Morris, 2006; Polk, Young, & Holbert, 2009), where positive effects was found of political satire on political internal efficacy, this study demonstrates that political satire has no significant effect on political internal efficacy. Though, significant differences in the participants’ indication of perceived funniness were found between both conditions, which indicate that the participants perceived the satirical clip funnier than the news clip.
Subsequently, according to the Elaboration Likelihood model it is suggested that when people are motivated to watch the show and have knowledge about the topics discussed – ability – that the audience will process the message through the central route and are more likely to counter argue the underlying political message. However, since most satirical television shows is considered entertaining and consists of narratives it was expected that people watch parody and satirical shows to be entertained, which causes people to pay more attention to the narrative and offer no resistance to the underlying political message. Yet, no evidence was found for this assumption. A possible explanation might be the that the Zwarte Pieten issue is a well-known issue in the Netherlands, the participants might not have learned something new, which in turn caused no increase in political internal efficacy.
Second, it was assumed that political satire has a positive effect on political interest. According to previous findings it is stated that an audience that prefers entertainment television take up basic political knowledge when it accidentally tunes in on political television (Aalberts, 2004; Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Baym, 2005; Prior, 2005). However, in agreement with the findings of Young (2008) this study found that there is no significant effect of political satire on political interest. A possible explanation could be that
humour causes distraction, which prevents scrutiny of the underlying political message. As mentioned earlier it is discussed that political satirical television shows are of importance in our society in order to make complex issues more accessible to an inattentive public
(Baumgarter & Morris, 2006; Becker, 2011; Bennett & Lyengar, 2008; Boukes, 2015). Yet, the findings of this study provide no evidence for this assumption.
Third, it was expected that the effect of political satire on political internal efficacy is moderated by perceived funniness. Previous studies to the effects of political satire and how perceived funniness moderates these effects suggest that when the satirical approach poses no threat to pre-existing views and when people have little prior knowledge considering the political issue people will more likely adopt the underlying political message because they feel entertained rather than instructed (Boukes, 2015; Meyer, 2000; Aalberts, 2004; Polk, Young, & Holbert, 2009). However, this study found no significant interaction effect between perceived funniness and both conditions on political internal efficacy. Hence, no evidence was found for this assumption. A possible explanation could be that the participants did not perceive the message funnier than the original news item because they had little knowledge about the Zwarte Pieten issue or the satirical approach was contrary to their views towards this issue, which caused them to reject the underlying political message.
Finally, it was assumed that the effect of political satire on political interest is moderated by perceived funniness. As discussed in the previous section it is argued that perceived funniness is explained by someone’s prior political knowledge and with little knowledge people will assumedly have less interest in politics. Though, Prior (2005) argues that even people with little political interest are exposed to political satire shows and are unconsciously influenced. Yet, no evidence was found in this study to confirm this
assumption. No significant interaction effect was found between perceived funniness and both conditions on political interest. A possible explanation could be that the participants’ humor
cannot be considered homogeneous. Furthermore, in agreement with the findings of the study to The Colbert Report (Baumgartner &Morris, 2008), an further explanation could be that the substance of the satirical clip caused confusion among the participants and therefore led to the opposite effect that was initially intended.
Limitations and future research
Even though this paper was written with great care, this study does have some limitations. The first limitation involves the stimulus material. Even though both clips were almost identical there remained some differences that could have influenced the results and the internal validity of this study. The satirical clip mounted the original clip from Pauw in a slightly different way what caused a different order of judgements. Also, the content of the clips were about the Zwarte Pieten issue, which is a known debate in the Netherlands for the past couple of years. For future research it is suggested to use a more complex political issue that people know little about, an international trade treaty for example, to obtain clearer results on whether political satire influences political internal efficacy and political interest.
Secondly, the sample consisted of a convenient sample and involved 116 participants who were mainly around the age of 25 and finished a university degree. Therefore, the external validity of this study is low. No conclusions can be drawn for people who did not finish a University degree or who are not around the age of 25 years old. Also, since the sample was rather small, it will not reveal small effects. For future research it is suggested to use a larger sample to also map out possible small effects. Subsequently, a survey experiment is used in order to find causal relationships. However, the downside is that it does not provide any answer to the question of why satirical messages affect political interest and political internal efficacy. It is therefore suggested to include qualitative research to the current body of research, in order to map out underlying motives and opinions of the target group.
Third, this study focuses on political satirical television shows. Though, watching television has changed quite a bit over the last couple of years. Digital television enables you to watch whatever you want, from different devices, at any time. It is therefore suggested for future research to add measurements if participants watch television on their laptops, on their smartphones or on television to examine whether there is a difference in the way participants obtain their information.
Last, research has shown that satire consists of various types of humor. A distinction can be made between Horatian satire and Juvenalian satire, which is based on the approach of criticism (Holbert,et al., 2011). According to previous research, differences between these forms of satire have different effects. It could be argued that Horatian satire would more likely influence political efficacy and political interest since this type of satire can be compared to comedy, while Juvenalian satire can be compared to tragedy (Holbert,et al., 2011). In this study not distinction is made between forms of satire, nevertheless it could be an interesting path for future research to take these differences into account.
It seems evident that more research is needed on the abovementioned topics that consider political satire. Yet, since no prior research has been done on political satire on political interest and political internal efficacy, within the Dutch context, this study broadened our understanding of the effects of political satirical television shows on the Dutch
Literature
Aalberg, T., & Curran, J. (Eds.). (2012). How media inform democracy: A comparative approach (Vol. 1). Routledge.
Aalberts, C. (2004). Populaire media als informatiebron over politiek? Amsterdam: ASCoR.
Aalberts, C. (2006). Aantrekkelijke politiek?: een onderzoek naar jongeren en popularisering van politiek. Het Spinhuis.
Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept" sense of political efficacy". Political Methodology, 1-43.
Baum, M. A. (2003). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence?. Political Communication, 20(2), 173-190. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211181
Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367. doi: doi/pdf/10.1177/1532673X05280074
Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2008). One “nation,” under Stephen? The effects of the Colbert Report on American youth. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 622-643. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838150802437487
Becker, A. B. (2014). Humiliate my enemies or mock my friends? Applying disposition theory of humor to the study of political parody appreciation and attitudes toward candidates. Human Communication Research, 40(2), 137–160.
doi:10.1111/hcre.12022.
Benjamin, D. (2007). A FrameWorks Institute FrameByte Episodic vs. Thematic Stories. Framework Institute.
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing
foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). At Odds: Laughing and Thinking? The Appreciation, Processing, and Persuasiveness of
Political Satire. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 721-744. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12173 Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political
journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259-276. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006492
CBS. (2002) Praten over politiek. Retrieved from:
https://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/5D17D3BF-E30C-453B-B5AD-6FD61C2E8165/0/index1259.pdf
CBS. (2015). Ruim 1 op de 3 jongeren is geïnteresseerd in politiek. Retrieved from: http://jeugdmonitor.cbs.nl/nl-nl/indicatoren/publicaties/2015/ruim-1-op-de-3-jongeren-is-geïnteresseerd-in-politiek/
Converse, Philip E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse (eds.), The Human Meaning of Social Change, pp. 263-337. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314.
De Blok et al. (2016). Democratie dichterbij lokaal kiezersonderzoek 2016. Retrieved from: http://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/rapporten-publicaties/democratie-dichterbij-lokaal-kiezersonderzoek-2016/
Delli Carpini, M.X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication,17(4), 341-349. doi:
10.1080/10584600050178942
Feinberg, L. (1967). Introduction to Satire. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205–218.
Hmielowski, J. D., Holbert, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). Predicting the consumption of political TV satire: Affinity for political humor, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 96–114. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.542579.
Holbert, R. L., Lambe, J. L., Dudo, A. D., & Carlton, K. A. (2007). Primacy effects of The Daily Show and national TV news viewing: Young viewers, political gratifications, and internal political self-efficacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(1), 20-38. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838150701308002
Holbert, R.L., Hmielowski, J., Jain, P., Lather, J., & Morey, A. (2011). Adding nuance to the study of political humour effects: experimental research on juvenalian satire versus horatian satire. American Behavioural Scientist, 55(3), 187-211. doi:
10.1177/0002764210392156
Hoffman, L. H., & Young, D. G. (2011). Satire, punch lines, and the nightly news:
Untangling media effects on political participation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 159-168 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565278
Liu, Y. I., & Eveland, W. P. (2005). Education, need for cognition, and campaign interest as moderators of news effects on political knowledge: An analysis of the knowledge
gap. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 910-929. doi: 10.1177/107769900508200410
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x
Nabi, R.L., Moyer-Gusé, E.M., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: a serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication
Monographs, 27(1), 29-54. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196896 Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattel, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the
1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407– 1413. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953
NOS. (2016). Arjan Lubach krijgt prijs voor doorprikken pseudowetenschap. Retrieved from:
http://nos.nl/artikel/2139030-arjen-lubach-krijgt-prijs-voor-doorprikken-pseudowetenschap.html
NOS. (2016). VVDer Zijlstra vindt afschaffen Zwarte Piet dome zet. Retrieved from: http://nos.nl/artikel/2139439-vvd-er-zijlstra-vindt-afschaffen-zwarte-piet-domme-zet.html
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.
Polk, J., Young, D. G., & Holbert, R. L. (2009). Humor complexity and political influence: An elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 202-219. doi:
Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment—education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173-191. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x
Young, D. G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor's role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11(1), 119-142. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213260701837073
Young, D.G., & Holbert, R.L. (2009). Humor complexity and political influence: An elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The Daily Show. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17, 202-219. Doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15456870903210055
Young, D. G., & Tisinger, R. M. (2006). Dispelling late-night myths: News consumption among late-night comedy viewers and the predictors of exposure to various late-night shows. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(3), 113–134.
doi:10.1177/1081180X05286042.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality of transitory dominance as a
communication variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(2), 191–198. doi:10.1037/h0033384.
Zoonen, L. van (2000). Popular culture as political communication. An introduction. Javnost / The Public, 7, 5-18.
Appendix A Survey
Beste respondent,
Amsterdam en gaat over de effecten van politieke satire. Je krijgt eerst een clip te zien die tussen de 1 en 2 minuten zal duren. Na de clip volgt een vragenlijst. Het onderzoek zal ongeveer 10 minuten in beslag nemen.
De resultaten van dit onderzoek worden uitsluitend voor academische doeleinden gebruikt en blijven anoniem. Mocht je toch niet meer mee willen doen aan het onderzoek kun je de internetbrowser afsluiten. Als je de vragenlijst al hebt afgemaakt, maar de gegevens wil intrekken moet je hierover binnen 48 uur contact opnemen met één van de onderzoekers (gegevens staan onderaan vermeld). Je data zal dan uit de analyses worden verwijderd.
Mochten er naar aanleiding van je deelname aan dit onderzoek klachten of opmerkingen zijn, dan kun je contact opnemen met het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Een vertrouwelijke behandeling van je klacht of opmerking is daarbij gewaarborgd.
Nogmaals bedankt,
Sophie Calicher: sophie.calicher@student.uva.nl
Ik begrijp bovenstaande tekst en ik ga akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek Ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ik ga niet akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek
Q1. Wat is uw geslacht?
Man Vrouw
Q2. Hoe oud bent u? ……….
Q3. Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?
Geen
Lagere school Vmbo
MBO
Havo, Vwo, Gymnasium HBO
Universitaire opleiding
Q4. In de politiek wordt er gesproken over links en rechts. Hoe links of rechts beschouwt u zichzelf? Gemeten op een schaal van 1 tot 10, waarbij 1 staat voor links en 10 staat voor rechts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q5. Hoe grappig vond u de clip die zojuist werd afgespeeld? Gemeten op een schaal van 1 tot 7, waarbij 1 staat voor niet grappig en 7 staat voor grappig.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q6. Hoe geïnteresseerd bent u in politiek? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q8. Hoe vaak zoekt u zelf informatie over politiek? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q9. Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen op een schaal van 1 tot
7:
Ik vind mezelf capabel genoeg om te participeren in politiek.
Ik heb voldoende kennis over belangrijke politieke issues die betrekking hebben op ons land.
Ik denk dat ik als bewindspersoon goed werk zou verrichten.
Ik beschik over het algemeen over meer politieke kennis dan de meeste mensen om mij heen.
Q10. Hoe zou u de afgespeelde video beoordelen?
Niet sarcastisch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sarcatisch Niet serieus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Serieus
