Satire versus News
How the type of medium and the topic influence political participation
Master’s Thesis By Nienke Izelaar
10176276
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science Supervised by M. Boukes
Abstract
This study researches how the type of political television program and the level of sensitivity of a topic discussed in the show affect the political participation, through the political self-efficacy of viewers. With an experiment focusing on Dutch news broadcasts and political satire shows, it becomes clear that the type of medium does not influence self-efficacy nor participation in the Dutch context. Internal self-efficacy is shown to negatively influence participation, while external efficacy does not affect participation. However, the results show that sensitivity has an influence on participation and indicate that non-sensitive topics are most effective. This study gives mostly new insights into how the sensitivity of a topic influences political behavior. Additionally, it researches the frequently tested mechanism between self-efficacy and participation in another context.
Keywords: satire, news, political participation, self-efficacy
Introduction
Due to the increasing popularity of political satire shows like The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a growing body of literature focuses on these type of shows. Many scholars have looked at the content of satire shows and have concluded that they are, in spite of their entertaining nature, highly informative (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007; Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007; Young & Hoffman, 2012). Fox, Koloen and Sahin (2007) even state with their content analysis that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart provided the same amount of substance as news broadcasts.
Thus, it comes as no surprise that findings like these led to more research into the impact of satire on the electorate. Scholars show that satire affects factors of political
engagement and participation, like political knowledge of current events (Hoffman & Young, 2011), candidate evaluation (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006) and the likelihood of voting (Lee
& Kwak, 2014). Although satire proves to be as informative as the news, little research has been done to compare satire and news and to study their differences in terms of their impact on the viewers’ political participation. Due to the differing goals of the two types of media content – to entertain versus to inform – it is likely that these contents impact the viewer differently. Evidence from previous studies suggest that the type of political content of a medium indeed determines political participation (Hoffman & Young, 2011; McCluskey, Deshpande, Shah, & McLeod, 2004). In addition, this research focuses on the moderating role of sensitivity of the topics discussed in the show. Although there are many scholars who have uncovered the effects of television shows, some attributes of these shows – like sensitivity- remain scarcely studied. The sensitivity of topics is a field that still has to be uncovered. This research, therefore, tries to shed some light on this topic by researching whether the impact differs between topics with high and topics with low emotional value or sensitivity.
In short, this research focuses on how the type of political television program (satire versus news) and the level of sensitivity of a topic discussed in the show affect the political participation, through the political self-efficacy of viewers.
This study provides more knowledge and insight into how common television
programs affect one of the most important democratic values: political participation. Due to the popularity of news broadcasts and the increasing popularity of shows, it is important to have a clear overview of its consequences. This is especially important in a society where citizens become less and less engaged with politics (Verba, Burns, & Schlozman, 1997).
Theory
In the current body of literature, scholars use the terms ‘hard news’ and ‘soft news’ to distinguish different types of news content. Although not all scholars agree upon the right conceptualization of ‘hard news’ and ‘soft news’, Reinemann et al. (2011) offer a clear and
concise distinction. They argue that “the more a news item is politically relevant, the more it reports in a thematic way, focuses on the societal consequences of events, is impersonal and unemotional in its style, the more it can be regarded as hard news” (Reinemann, Stanyer, Scherr, & Legnante, 2011, p. 13). As one would expect, most television news broadcasts are labeled as ‘hard news’ (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Reinemann et al., 2011). With regard to soft news, on the other hand, it is stated that “the more a news items is not politically relevant, the more it reports in an episodic way, focuses on individual consequences of events, is personal and emotional in style, the more it can be regarded as soft news” (Reinemann et al., 2011, p. 13). In other words: soft news uses more drama and focuses on personalities and less on political information. Examples of soft news are stories about sports or political stories with a human interest theme.
Due to the entertaining nature of satire, many scholars categorize it as soft news (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). However, some scholars argue that is it incorrect to put political satire in the same category as for example talk shows and sitcoms (Holbert, 2005). Besides the entertaining nature, satire also has a strong focus on politics and is informative. It, therefore, does not fit well in the soft news category. That is why Holbert (2005) suggests a categorization for entertainment shows, based on two dimensions: whether the content is primarily or secondarily expected to be political, and whether the statements in the show implicitly or explicitly indicate a political perspective. Holbert (2005) argues that political satire shows are primarily political, but that political statements and perspectives are implicit.
Political satire
Satire is indeed a traditionally literary form that seeks to entertain. However, it also seeks to educate the audience (Holbert, Hmielowski, Jain, Lather, & Morey, 2011). Satire often has the tendency to attack others and is ‘pre-generic’ (Holbert et al., 2011). This means that satire uses already existing genres as a format and from thereon attacks topics or people (Holbert,
Lambe, Dudo, & Carlton, 2007; Holbert et al., 2011). Examples are The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and This Week Tonight with John Oliver, where the television show hosts use the existing format of television news broadcasts as a basis for their comedic show.
Satirical content can be found in many forms, like television shows and written articles. Moreover, the targets of satirical humor are diverse. Previous literature distinguishes episodic, personal, experimental and textual targets (Holbert et al., 2011). The episodic targets encompass particular events and situations, while the personal targets typically contain attacks on personal fails and personality fails of individuals with high societal status (Holbert et al., 2011). Satire focusing on experimental targets, on the other hand, contain reflections on social norms and normative human behavior and human hypocrisy (Holbert et al., 2011). And finally, attacks on textual targets focus on the use of language (Holbert et al., 2011).
Moreover, the body of literature also distinguishes between types of satire. The two most prominent types of satire are the Juvenalian and Horatian categories. The Horatian category reflects the milder and lighter type and points out ‘the truth’ with the use of
situations in daily life. It is a critique of social norms and the status quo, without repelling the audience (Holbert et al., 2011). Opposed to Horatian satire, is the Juvenalian type. This category is seen as the harsher type of satire. The critiques within this category are more acidic in tone (Holbert et al., 2011).
Baym (2005) explains that in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, there are three main segments. The first and most relevant segment to this research, is the news update. During this segment news on relevant topics is being discussed. These topics are primarily political and cover issues from national security to foreign affairs (Baym, 2005). Contrary to other mock news shows and even traditional television news, however, the Daily Show does not briefly mention an issue to move on to the next. The Daily Show spends minutes on an issue providing background information, placing the issue in wider contexts and linking it to
historical or previous events (Baym, 2005). All this information functions as a build-up to the jokes made during the segment. The other two segments are a fake news report with
comedians acting as reporters and an interview with a guest (Baym, 2005). Naturally, there are many different types of satire shows that use different formats. So it is important to note that not every satire spends the same amount on providing background information and has the same build up to a joke. The Dutch satire show that is being studied (Zondag met Lubach), however, strongly lends its format from The Daily Show. That is why this thesis focuses on shows similar to The Daily Show that provide context and explanations.
Political efficacy as a mechanism for participation
Although many have found effects of (news) media on participation in political activities (Hoffman & Young, 2011; Moy, Xenos, & Hess, 2005), some scholars argue that these effects are not direct (Jung, Kim, & Zúñiga, 2011). They state that the effects of media on
participation depend on and are mediated by political efficacy (Hoffman & Thomson, 2009; Hoffman & Young, 2011; Jung et al., 2011). Political self-efficacy is the belief that someone can make a political and social change (Hoffman & Young, 2011). Political efficacy can function as several mechanisms: it could determine the effects on participation (efficacy as a moderator) or media could indirectly affect participation through efficacy (efficacy as a mediator). It is even a possibility that both processes work simultaneously. Although there are some scholars who research internal efficacy as a moderator (e.g. Cao & Brewer, 2008), most scholars agree that it mediates the effects of news media exposure and participation
(Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Hoffman & Thomson, 2009; Jung et al., 2011).
Political self-efficacy exists of two dimensions: internal and external. Internal efficacy is one’s belief of being capable to understand politics and their capacity to be involved in politics (Hoffman & Young, 2011). External efficacy is one’s “belief in the government’s responsiveness and effectiveness” (Hoffman & Young, 2011, p. 161). Although many
scholars refer to internal efficacy when mentioning political efficacy, this distinction is being acknowledged by most of the scholars.
The effects of satire and news on political self-efficacy
Internal self-efficacy
Political satire and news are both able to influence the feeling of capability – although
somewhat differently. First of all, exposure to news has been found to be positively related to political self-efficacy (Hoffman & Thomson, 2009; Hoffman & Young, 2011). Hoffman and Thomson (2009) argue that the reason for this positive relationship, is the informational content of the medium. Exposure to the information provided in news media increases
political knowledge, which increases the understanding of politics and therefore enhances the viewer’s feeling of competence. However, simply receiving information is not enough to fully understand the content. To understand hard news and political issues being discussed, it is necessary to have some prior knowledge about the subjects matter (Hoffman & Young, 2011). This prior knowledge has to be linked to the new information in order to understand the current events. For example, it is only possible to completely understand news about the changed policies for refugees, if you have prior knowledge of the previous policies and the current situation. If you are able to link the prior and the new knowledge, one will understand politics better. This leads to feeling more competent and therefore higher levels of internal efficacy (Hoffman & Young, 2011).
As news media contribute to the feeling of competence or internal efficacy, so do political satire shows (Hoffman & Young, 2011). Similar to news broadcasts, this feeling of competence is caused by the informational content of satire (Hoffman & Thomson, 2009). The information and news updates provided during the show increase political knowledge and the understanding of politics, which results in enhancement of the viewer’s feeling of
broadcasts, however, it is not necessary to have prior knowledge on the topics discussed to understand satire. As explained earlier, political satire shows such as TDS or ZML discuss issues more extensively than television news broadcasts usually do. In contrast to news, satire provides background information and links with historical or previous events (Baym, 2005). To put it differently: Information is provided in bite-size pieces, so that it does not take much effort to understand the content. Thus with satire, viewers learn more easily. It is important to note, however, that satire is not necessarily more informative than news broadcasts. Some news broadcasts spend equal or more time on topics compared to satire. The news broadcasts used in this research are just as informative and extensive as the satire show.
Most importantly, however, is humor. Due to humor used in political satire shows, information gets processed differently than news broadcasts. To understand the humor in the show, it is necessary to cognitively process the content (Hoffman & Young, 2011; Young, 2004). The audience has to put in some effort to understand the jokes (Nabi, Moyer-Gusé, & Byrne, 2007). Contrary to news, where the audience takes in the information passively, satire viewers are motivated to understand the information in order to get the joke. Nabi, Muyer-Guse and Byrne (2007) argue that, based on the ELM-model, high motivation leads to dominance of the central route. This type of processing usually refers to more stable and lasting attitude change. However, Nabi et al. (2007) also show that humor leads to deeper processing of the information. Due to this high level of cognitive processing, viewers of satire have a better understanding of the content and are therefore more able to access and recall the information received through the show (Nabi et al., 2007; Young, 2004). Higher accessibility of information and better recall could also be indicators of better understanding of politics and could possibly lead to feeling more competent.
Because satire provides information more readily but most importantly contains humor that enables better access to and recall of the information provided, it seems likely that
exposure to satire leads to a stronger feeling of competence than exposure to news. Thus, viewers of satire are expected to have higher levels of internal efficacy, compared to viewers of television news broadcasts. However, articles comparing satire and news shows different results. Hoffman and Young (2011), for example, compared the effects of satire and news and found that both have similar effects concerning internal efficacy. Due to the ambiguity, a research question is formulated:
RQ1: How does exposure to satire affect internal efficacy compared to news broadcasts?
External self-efficacy
The current body of research shows that little is known about how external efficacy is affected by media content. However, many scholars have researched the effects on cynicism and political trust. Although most scholars agree that external efficacy and cynicism are in reality different concept, some scholars argue that low levels of external efficacy and cynicism are strongly related (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). Therefore, the literature on cynicism is helpful to formulate assumptions about external efficacy.
Based on the literature on cynicism, both satire and news are expected to affect external efficacy. With regard to satire, previous literature shows that it increases political cynicism (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Guggenheim, Kwak, & Campbell, 2011) probably due to the harsh critiques on policies, government and politicians (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). Baumgartner and Morris (2006) argue that, because satire makes fun of politicians and the political system, viewers get a more negative image of politics and politicians compared to news viewers. Due to this negative image, their trust in politics deteriorates and their cynicism increases (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). Rill and Cardiel (2013), on the other hand, do not support these results and found that satirical representations of politicians had no effect on cynicism. Although the latter research did not find evidence of increased cynicism due to
satire, the majority of the studies prove otherwise. Thus, we can expect satire to influence external efficacy similarly and, thus, to decrease it.
Regarding news media, there is an ongoing debate about whether news media evoke political cynicism and decrease political trust, referring to it as ‘media malaise’ (Newton, 1999). According to this theory, the mass media have a negative impact on society’s trust in politics, due to their search for sensation and drama (Newton, 1999). More recently, scholars agree that the problem lies in the media content, but state the cause for increasing cynicism is the news media’s use of the strategy frame when discussing politics (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996; Vreese, 2004). Within this frame, the focus is mainly on winning or losing, politics as a war or competition and on performance (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996). Cappella and Jamieson (1996) explain that this focus on strategy by the media only shows politicians’ fight for more power rather than their fight for the common good. This makes voters believe politicians care more about their self-interests. This subsequently leads to lower political trust and more cynicism (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996; de Vreese, 2004), even outside campaign periods (de Vreese, 2004).
On the contrary, research also shows that news without the strategic frame generally does not evoke cynicism (de Vreese, 2004). Additionally, it is important to note that the news fragments in this study do not use a strategy frame. Taking this into consideration, there is little reason to expect news to decrease external efficacy. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: Exposure to satire leads to lower levels of external efficacy compared to exposure to news.
Political participation is a concept often used in academics, but little explained. Generally, scholars define political participation as behavior and activities that relate to politics (e.g. Hoffman & Thomson, 2009). This research, on the other hand, has a similar, but still
somewhat different approach to political participation. This research defines participation as the intended political actions of the participants, because it is impossible to measure their actual behavior with an experiment.
As stated earlier, media may affect participation indirectly through political efficacy. But now the question rises as to how efficacy affects participation. Many researchers have found a positive influence of political self-efficacy on political participation (Hoffman & Thomson, 2009; Hoffman & Young, 2011; Zhang, Johnson, Seltzer, & Bichard, 2009). The current body of research, however, has not given much attention to the mechanism between these two concepts. It is, therefore, unclear how and why self-efficacy positively affects participation. Zhang, Johnson, Seltzer and Bichard (2009) are few of the scholars who explain this effect and argue that feelings of political self-efficacy are necessary or even a prerequisite for citizens to engage in politics. They argue that citizens first need to see that they are able to participate, before they understand that their political behavior is valuable. Bandura (1982) supports this from a psychological point of view and explains that the taxation of one’s own capabilities is part of an important process in order to decide which actions to undertake and which not. He claims that, to avoid negative consequences, people avoid activities they believe they are not capable of. This also works the other way around: people undertake those actions they believe they are able to finish successfully. Relating this to politics, we can conclude that the more capable citizens feel, the more inclined they are to participate. Although the evidence is scarce, there are signs of a positive relationship between internal self-efficacy and political participation. Therefore, the hypothesis is as follows:
H2: There is a positive relationship between internal self-efficacy and political participation.
External efficacy, too, is expected to have a positive relationship with political participation, based on the literature on political cynicism. Political cynicism is commonly seen as a cause of declining political participation (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996; Pinkleton, Austin, & Fortman, 1998). Cynicism evokes feelings of distrust towards and a lack of confidence in the government. This leads to alienation with politics and less willingness to participate in political activities (Hooghe & Marien, 2013). This would indicate that low external efficacy has similar effects and also decreases political participation. However, previous literature shows there is evidence that high levels of cynicism in some circumstances mobilizes voters. Southwell and Pirch (2003), for example, showed that increased cynicism towards politics led to an increase in voter turnout among black voters. Still, this is
insufficient evidence to assume the same will be true for low external validity. Therefore, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
H3: There is a positive relationship between external efficacy and political participation.
The effects of sensitivity on political participation
A lot of scholarly attention goes out to the effect of (political) television shows on the
audience. However, almost all of the attention is focused on the type of medium – as does this research- and the framing of a message. Other attributes of television shows have received little to no attention. This is the case for sensitivity of the topics discussed. When it comes to sensitivity of a topic, little research has been done.
Sensitive topics are in this research described as (news) topics that are emotionally-laden and evoke strong feelings of emotion among the audience, because the audience can
identify with it or beliefs it affects them. Some topics are expected to trigger more feelings of emotions than others. Political topics, for example, usually contain few characteristics of emotionally-laden messages (Uribe & Gunter, 2007). Crime stories, on the other hand, is a topic that usually is emotionally-laden (Uribe & Gunter, 2007). This would suggest that political topics are usually not sensitive and crime stories are. Uribe and Gunther (2007) indicate that other topics do not trigger feelings of emotions as constant as politics and crime, because the way of reporting these topics varies strongly between television channels and shows. Therefore, it remains unclear which news topics are intrinsically more sensitive than others.
Although it is unknown which topics are sensitive and which not, there is some evidence that suggests that sensitivity could influence political behavior. Human interest stories, where people involved are explicitly being portrayed during the story, are proven to influence political attitude (Boukes, Boomgaarden, Moorman, & de Vreese, 2014). Boukes et al. (2014) indicate with their study that human exemplars have the ability to strongly
influence and direct one’s attitude. As with a human exemplar, sensitivity is based on identification. Therefore, one could argue that sensitivity could have the same effects.
However, this is still insufficient evidence to come to an assumption. Therefore, the following research question is:
RQ2: How do sensitive topics affect political participation compared to non-sensitive topics?
Additionally, it is interesting to research how medium type and sensitivity interact witch each other and how they simultaneously affect participation. Therefore, the next final research question is:
RQ3: How will the effects of medium type (satire vs news) on participation differ for sensitive and non-sensitive topics?
Based on the previous research and the formulate hypotheses and research questions, the following research model is proposed (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Conceptual model of the dependent and independent variables Method
To test the effects of the type of show and sensitivity of the topic, an online experiment was conducted. The experiment was a 2 (medium: satire versus news) by 2 (sensitivity of the topic: high versus low) factorial design, and included a control group in which participants were not exposed to a manipulation, but only filled in the questionnaire. The experiment was put online May 2nd and a link through which the experiment could be accessed was provided on social media websites like Facebook. When entering the online experiment, participants were first asked to give their informed consent and for their demographics and important political characteristics (e.g. political preference and interest). Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: sensitive satire (1), sensitive news (2), non-sensitive satire (3), non-sensitive news (4) or the control group. After being exposed to the stimulus, the participants were asked to answer questions about their self-efficacy, participation and political knowledge.
Table 1 The used experimental groups Satire News
Sensitive topic 1 2
Non-sensitive topic 3 4
Material
Each stimulus consisted of a short video of a Dutch television show, and depicted either Zondag met Lubach (satire) or Nieuwsuur (news broadcast). Zondag met Lubach is a satirical news show that strongly resembles the American The Daily Show; the host Arjen Lubach discusses the latest news and political topics in a humorous and critical manner, while it appears to be a genuine news background. The show is broadcasted by the public broadcaster VPRO. Nieuwsuur, on the other hand, is a news show, also broadcasted by a public
broadcaster, the NOS. Contrary to most news shows, Nieuwsuur spends a lot of time on one topic or segment and a show or episode often takes twenty minutes discussing few topics. The topics, however, are being discussed in-depth, similar to satire at Zondag met Lubach.
Moreover, the hosts in the videos either discussed the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between Europe and the US (sensitive topic) or the mismanagement of housing cooperative Rochdale (non-sensitive topic). TTIP was chosen as the sensitive topic, because it is a topic that has direct consequences for citizens and evokes feelings of injustice and
unfairness. Housing cooperative Rochdale was chosen as a non-sensitive topic, because it is a topic that does not necessarily appeal to one’s emotions and does not directly affects the common citizen.
All four stimuli were cut and edited in a way that all fragments were as similar as possible. Therefore, all the fragments are approximately of the same duration; they take approximately three and a half minutes. Moreover, it was made sure that the fragments
discussing the same topic provided similar information and arguments. The videos only contained material that was in the original episode, no extra clips or lines were added.
Manipulation tests
To check whether the manipulation of the material was successful, the participants were firstly asked to what extent they thought the video they had seen was intended to be funny. Participants could answer on a scale ranging from 1 to 10. This way, we could make sure the participants had understood the nature of the videos. An Analysis of Variance indicated that the differences between the satire and news conditions differed significantly in the amount of perceived funniness, F (1) = 229.68, p < 0.001. Satire (M = 6.15, SD = 2.24) showed to be funnier than news (M = 1.64, SD = 1.31).
Secondly, they were asked to indicate how sensitive they thought the topic was and to what extent the topic was able to affect their personal lives. These questions measured whether the sensitivity of the topics were manipulated successfully. The participants were again asked to rate these questions on a scale ranging from 1 to 10. An Analysis of Variance indicated that the sensitive and non-sensitive conditions differed significantly in the level of perceived sensitivity of the topic, F (1) = 5.61, p = 0.019. TTIP (M = 7.34, SD = 1.00) was perceived as a more sensitive topic than housing cooperative Rochdale (M = 6.68, SD = 1.98). A second Analysis of Variance showed that the sensitive and non-sensitive conditions also differed significantly in the level of to what extant the topics were perceived to influence daily life, F (1) = 8.28, p = 0.005. As expected, Rochdale (M = 4.07, SD = 2.21) was perceived as less able to influence daily life compared to TTIP (M = 5.11, SD = 2.31).
Therefore, we can conclude that the manipulations were successful.
The data collection resulted in 208 participants who completed the entire experiment. One participant was excluded from the dataset, because he or she was under the age of eighteen. Thus, there were 207 participants in total. The participants were on average young (M = 29.29, SD = 12.33) and mostly female (60.9 percent). The majority of the participants is highly educated: 50.2 percent followed or completed a University of Applied Sciences study or obtained a bachelor’s/undergraduate degree, and 20.7 percent received their
master’s/(post)graduate degree. In addition, the participants are slightly prone to be progressive and score 2.44 on average (SD = 0.767) on a five point scale ranging from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’. Finally, the participants moderate interest in politics, because they scored on average 3.09 (SD = 1.080) on a five point scale that ranged from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’.
Measures
Political interest. Participants were asked in the pretest to indicate their political interest. They were provide with a five-point Likert scale with answers ranging from ‘not interested at all’ (1) to ‘very interested’ (5).
Political preference. During the pretest, participants indicated their political pretest based on a five-point scale. The answers ranged from ‘very progressive’ (1) to ‘very conservative’ (5).
Internal self-efficacy. The feeling of competence was measured using five items, which are proven to be consistent and correctly measuring the concept of internal efficacy by Niemi, Craig and Matthei (1991). Examples of the statements are: ‘Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can't really understand what's going on’ and ‘I think that I am better informed about politics and government than most people’. All participants answered on a five-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from ‘disagree
completely’ to ‘agree completely’. After reversing two items, the scale showed to be rather reliable (α = 0.68, M = 15.24, SD = 3.47). The higher the value, the higher the internal efficacy.
External self-efficacy. The feeling of an effective and efficient working government was also measured using several statements. Two statements were borrowed from the article of Niemi, Craig and Matthei (1991): ‘People like me don't have any say about what the government does’ and ‘I don't think public officials care much what people like me think’. However, two statements were added to the measure, to make sure the scale was measuring the right concept. These two statements were: ‘The government does what we ask her to do’ and ‘The government’s policy is ineffective and does not work well’. As for internal efficacy, the statements had to be answered using a Likert disagree-agree scale. After reversing the negative items, the scale proves to be reliable (α = 0.70, M = 11.27, SD = 2.77).
Political participation. The measure of participation measured the intention to participate rather than their actual behavior. The reason for this is that is it very difficult to measure one’s actual behavior in an experiment, when they do not have the chance to behave yet. The participants were asked whether they plan to participate in several political activities during the next year. The activities were derived from Gibson and Cantijoch (2013), who proposed to include offline as well as online and both active and passive activities. Thus, the measure included items like ‘Participating in a demonstration’, ‘Following a politician on a social networking site’ and ‘Reading a news article’. However, it was made sure that the items complemented the topic the participants were exposed to. For example, participants who watched a clip about the housing cooperative saw the item ‘Participate in a demonstration for/against a housing cooperative’, while participants who watched the video about TTIP saw the item ‘Participate in a demonstration for/against TTIP’. This way, the activities would be more relevant. The participants reported their answers on a four-point scale. The possible
answers were: ‘Yes, definitely’ (1), ‘Yes, maybe’ (2) and ‘No’ (3). After reversion of the values into: ‘No’ (0), ‘Yes, maybe’ (1) and ‘Yes, definitely’ (2), all the items concerning the same topic and the type of participation were computed into a scale. So, the items about TTIP were clustered together in a scale. The TTIP items were, additionally, divided into two groups measuring online and offline participation. This resulted in six scales that proved to be
somewhat to very reliable in all cases (see Table 2). This was done to calculate the reliability of the scales. Due to the fact that participants only saw the items that corresponded with their experimental group, there were missing values for each of the items. For example, the people who saw a video about TTIP only received the corresponding set of questions. Therefore, their answers were missing on the set of questions corresponding with the control group and Rochdale. Because of the missing values, it was not possible to calculate the reliability of the overall offline and online participation. Still, these subscales were computed into an offline and an online participation scale for the analyses.
Table 2 The means, standard deviations and reliability of the participation scales.
M SD α Offline General 18.43 3.37 0.63 TTIP 18.21 5.74 0.75 Rochdale 19.51 3.56 0.68 Online General 9.31 4.62 0.82 TTIP 9.29 4.58 0.76 Rochdale 10.75 2.13 0.66
Political knowledge. The knowledge of the participants regarding politics was measured using five multiple choice questions. There were two easy questions, testing their knowledge about the current political parties in government and the current prime minister. The third question is moderately difficult and asks how many seats there are in Parliament. The final two questions are more difficult and tested the knowledge of the current chairman of Parliament and how the Dutch senate gets chosen. Since the questions were multiple choice, there were three possible answers given: the correct answer, two wrong answers and a ‘Don’t know’-option. The values were recoded into a correct answer (1) and an incorrect answer (0). The values of the knowledge scale (M = 3.19, SD = 0.95) ranged from 0 to 5 and the higher the score, the more political knowledge the participants has.
Randomization check
An Analysis of Variances with the conditions as independent and age as dependent variable indicates that there are no significant differences between the conditions in terms of age, F (4) = 0.36, p = .837. As for gender, a Chi-Square test indicates that there is no significant
difference between the conditions either, Shi-Square (4) = 4.64, p = .327. A second Analysis of Variance indicated that there are no significant differences between the conditions in terms of political interest, F (4) = 1.47, p = .214, political knowledge, F (4) = 1.72, p = .146, or political preference, F (4) = 0.85, p = .495. Thus, the randomization was successful and there is no need to include control variables.
Results
Medium and sensitivity on internal and external efficacy
First, Two-way Anova’s were conducted to measure the effects of the type of medium and level of sensitivity on internal and external efficacy. The first Two-Way Anova indicates that the direct effects of medium type, F (1) = 2.43, p = .120, and sensitivity F (1) = 0.89, p =
.345, on internal efficacy are not significant. There is no significant interaction effect either between medium type and sensitivity on internal efficacy, F (1) = 0.44, p = .505.
Interestingly, the analyses indicates that participants who watched news (M = 15.63, SD = 0.39) have higher levels of internal efficacy than participants who watched satire (M = 14.76, SD = 0.39). In addition, it shows that participants in the TTIP condition had higher levels of internal efficacy (M = 15.46, SD = 0.39) than the Rochdale conditions (M = 14.93, SD = 0.38). Unfortunately, these findings are insignificant and therefore coincidental.
The second Two-Way Anova shows there are no significant direct effects of medium type, F (1) = 0.05, p = .825, or sensitivity, F (1) = 0.25, p = .619, on external efficacy. The analysis also shows that there is no interaction effect between medium type and sensitivity on external efficacy, F (1) = 0.67, p = .413. Interesting is the fact that news discussing a sensitive topic (M = 11.54, SD = 3.24) resulted in higher external efficacy compared to if satire
discusses a sensitive topic (M = 11.27, SD = 2.49). On the contrary, satire discussing a non-sensitive topic (M = 11.41, SD = 2.69) led to higher external efficacy compared to when news discusses a non-sensitive topic (M = 10.95, SD = 2.87). See Figure 2 for the explaining model. But again, these results seem to be coincidental.
Additionally, two One-way Anovas indicate that there are no significant differences between the conditions (including the control group) and internal efficacy, F (4) = 0.99, p = .415, nor between the conditions and external efficacy, F (4) = 0.25, p = .908. This means that the differences between the experimental groups and the control group are coincidental, and not attributed to the manipulations.
Based on these results, the first research question testing how satire influences internal efficacy compared to news (RQ1) can be answered. The results indicate that there is no direct effect of medium type on internal efficacy. Therefore, both exposure to news and satire do not influence one’s internal self-efficacy. Moreover, the first hypothesis stating that exposure to
satire leads to lower levels of external efficacy than news (H1) is rejected. The results clearly show there is no significant effect between medium type and external efficacy. Thus, neither satire nor news influence external efficacy.
Internal and external efficacy on offline and online participation
A regression indicates that the regression model of internal and external efficacy is a significant predictor of offline participation, F (2, 204) = 16.01, p < .001. Moreover, 13. 6 percent of offline participation can be predicted by internal and external efficacy (R2 = 0.14). Internal efficacy, b* = -0.38, t = -5.60, p < .000, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.15], appears to have a medium significant relationship with offline participation. Additionally, when internal efficacy increases with one point, participation decreases with 0.23. Thus, the higher the internal efficacy, the lower participation. External efficacy on the other hand, has no
significant correlation with offline participation, b* = 0.04, t = 0.61, p = .543, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.13].
A second regression analysis with internal and external efficacy as independent variables and online participation as dependent variables, shows that the regression model
10,6 10,8 11 11,2 11,4 11,6 Satire News
Figure 2: Interaction effect of medium and sensitivity on
external efficacy
significantly predicts online participation, F (2, 204) = 28.74, p < .001. Similar to the previous model, this model predicts 22 percent of online participation (R2 = 0.22). Again, internal efficacy has a medium significant and negative relationship with online participation, b* = -0.47, t = -7.36, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.35, -0.20]. For every increasing point in internal efficacy, the online participation decreases with 0.27. External efficacy proves to be an insignificant predictor, b* = 0.00, t = 0.04, p = .968, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.09].
Thus, H2 and H3 can be rejected as well. The hypotheses state that there are positive relationships between internal efficacy and participation and external efficacy and
participation. However, the results indicate something different. There is a negative relationship between internal efficacy and participation. In other words: the higher one’s internal efficacy, the lower one’s participation. Moreover, there is no direct relationship between external efficacy and participation – neither positive nor negative.
Medium type and sensitivity on participation
A two-way Anova was conducted to measure the effects of medium and sensitivity on both offline and online participation. The first analysis indicates that the effect of sensitivity on offline participation is significant, F (1) = 17.96, p < .001. Participants who watched satire discussing a sensitive topic (M = 18.57, SD = 0.34) had higher levels of participation than the participants in the news group with a sensitive topic (M = 17.87, SD = 0.33). Moreover, participants who watched non-sensitive topic Rochdale (M = 19.52, SD = 0.24) have higher levels of offline participation compared to the participants in the sensitive TTIP group (M = 18.09, SD = 0.24) – regardless of the type of medium. The analysis also indicates that there is no significant direct effect of medium type on offline participation, F (1) = 0.12, p = .727, nor a significant interaction effect between medium type and sensitivity, F (1) = 0.90, p = .345.
The second two-way Anova with regard to online participation shows very similar results. There is a significant direct effect of sensitivity, F (1) = 24.81, p <.001. The
participants who watched non-sensitive topic Rochdale (M = 10.75, SD = 0.21) have higher levels of offline participation compared to the participants in the sensitive TTIP group (M = 9.30, SD = 0.22) – regardless of the type of medium. There is, again, no significant direct effect of medium type on online participation, F (1) = 0.90, p = .344, nor a significant interaction effect between medium type and sensitivity, F (1) = 1.53, p = .218.
To test whether there were any differences between the control group and the conditions, a One-way Anova was conducted. This analysis indicates that there are no
significant differences between the conditions and offline participation, F (9) = 0.97, p = .464, nor between the conditions and online participation, F (8) = 1.33, p = .229.
Based on these results, we can answer the final two research questions. The second research question (RQ2) tested how sensitivity affects participation. From the results, we can conclude that sensitivity of the topic significantly affects offline and online participation. A surprising result, however, is the fact that the non-sensitive topic Rochdale apparently leads to higher levels of participation than the sensitive topic TTIP. This differs from what one would expect. The third research question (RQ3) tested how the effects of medium type on
participation would differ for sensitive and non-sensitive topics. As mentioned earlier, sensitivity has a direct effect on participation. Medium type, however, does not significantly affect participation. Therefore, medium type and sensitivity do not interact together and affect participation simultaneously.
Discussion
This research tested how the type of medium and the level of sensitivity of a discussed topic affected participation, through political self-efficacy. The results mostly contradict previous
literature about media, political efficacy and political participation. According to the results, the type of medium does not influence internal efficacy. This result contradicts many scholars who have found that news, entertainment programs and satire influence the internal efficacy (Hoffman & Thomson, 2009; Hoffman & Young, 2011). This research implies that news and satire do not increase nor decrease one’s feeling of competence – at least not immediately. A reason for this could be the fact that this change takes time and that it is necessary to watch the news or satire several times before changes in one’s feelings of competence can be registered. This research exposed participants once to a type of medium, which could have been insufficient.
Another result from this research is the fact that the type of medium does not influence external efficacy. These results imply that the effects of satire and news might not be as negative as the literature depicts – although they are not as positive as expected either. These results show no sign of satire or news as a cause of low external efficacy, contrary to common scholarly thought (e.g. ‘media malaise’), since there is no difference between the control group and the conditions. But again, the cause for the lack of influence could be the fact that change takes time and more than one moment of exposure.
A surprising result is the negative relationship between internal efficacy and
participation, while external efficacy has no effect on participation whatsoever. The former is a very surprising result, since the majority of the literature belief that internal efficacy is a requirement for political participation (Zhang et al., 2009). A reason for this negative relationship, is the possibility of citizens looking for different and unconventional ways of participating. It is for example possible citizens with high internal efficacy turn to civic participation instead. The fact that there is no influence detected between external efficacy and participation, is also surprising. This implies that the trust in the government and its
efficiency is not a prerequisite for citizens to participate in politics. Most likely there are other factors that better determine one’s participation.
The most interesting result, however, is the fact that sensitivity affects political participation. Especially the non-sensitive topic seemed to be most effective. This could not only be applicable to television shows, but also to other types of communication, like face-to-face conversations. It would, therefore, be interesting to further study what makes a topic sensitive and how this sensitivity influences other types of political behavior.
Although this research is an interesting one, it certainly has some points of
improvement. First of all, the research has a low amount of participants. Every condition and the control group only contains approximately 41 participants and resulted in a sufficient amount of data – although more data would be preferable. This could be one of the reasons why few of the results are significant. Moreover, a total of 207 participants might not be enough to come to conclusive results and conclusions about the effects of media and sensitivity of the topic.
Another aspect that could be improved, is the internal validity. In all cases, scenes were cut from the original video to make sure that all videos had the same length and the same information and arguments. But besides the cutting, the shows were kept as were kept as original as possible, by not adding own material. This means that the external validity is high and that these videos are ‘manipulations’ that citizens can encounter in daily life. Due to this, the research has lost some internal validity. It is possible that the few effects in the research can be attributed to factors I did not control for. For example, the different hosts in the shows, the music in the videos or the different footage of the shows can be the reason of the effects instead of the type of medium and sensitivity. It is important to acknowledge this in future studies and try to find a way to balance this. Even so, the external validity is high. So even though the internal validity is low, it is fairly certain these result resemble the ‘real world’.
The fact that participants did not participate in a laboratory, but filled in the questionnaire and watched the videos in their own environment, ensures that the results are not artificial.
The final aspect that needs improvement, is the reliability of the scales. This is not as high as one would expect with already used items and scales. The reason for the low
reliability, could be the fact that the items were translated from English to Dutch in the questionnaire. It is a possibility that the Dutch translations did not entirely encompass the same concepts as the English items. Another reason could be that participants did not entirely understand the items or questions. Additionally, this study researches the intention of
participating rather than the actual participation. One could question how reliable this measure is and how well this predicts the actual behavior. However, an experiment does not allow to measure actual political participation – as do few methods.
Despite the points of improvement, this research shows some interesting result in a different political and cultural environment than the one in the US. It also offers a first step into the field of sensitive topics within media and the effects they have on democratic values. As mentioned before, few scholars have focused on sensitivity and still little is known about this field. It would be interesting to extend this research and research the different types of topics and to what extent topics are able to mobilize or demobilize voters. Additionally, there is more research needed to the question when a topic is really sensitive and which topics are naturally sensitive.
Literature
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show Effect Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341–367. doi:10.1177/1532673X05280074
Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259–276.
doi:10.1080/10584600591006492
Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M., & Vreese, C. H. de. (2014). Political News with a Personal Touch How Human Interest Framing Indirectly Affects Policy
Attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1077699014558554. doi:10.1177/1077699014558554
Brewer, P. R., & Marquardt, E. (2007). Mock News and Democracy: Analyzing The Daily Show. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15(4), 249–267.
doi:10.1080/15456870701465315
Cao, X., & Brewer, P. R. (2008). Political Comedy Shows and Public Participation in Politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(1), 90–99.
doi:10.1093/ijpor/edm030
Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). News Frames, Political Cynicism, and Media Cynicism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 71–84.
Fox, J. R., Koloen, G., & Sahin, V. (2007). No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Presidential Election Campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(2), 213–227. doi:10.1080/08838150701304621
Gibson, R., & Cantijoch, M. (2013). Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline? The Journal of Politics, 75(03), 701–716. doi:10.1017/S0022381613000431
Guggenheim, L., Kwak, N., & Campbell, S. W. (2011). Nontraditional News Negativity: The Relationship of Entertaining Political News Use to Political Cynicism and Mistrust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, edr015. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr015 Hoffman, L. H., & Thomson, T. . (2009). The Effect of Television Viewing on Adolescents’
Civic Participation: Political Efficacy as a Mediating Mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(1), 3–21. doi:10.1080/08838150802643415 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:10.1080/08824096.2011.565278
Holbert, R. L. (2005). A Typology for the Study of Entertainment Television and Politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 436–453. doi:10.1177/0002764205279419 Holbert, R. ., Lambe, J. ., 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:10.1080/08838150701308002
Holbert, R. L., Hmielowski, J., Jain, P., Lather, J., & Morey, A. (2011). Adding Nuance to the Study of Political Humor Effects: Experimental Research on Juvenalian Satire Versus Horatian Satire. American Behavioral Scientist, 0002764210392156.
doi:10.1177/0002764210392156
Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2013). A Comparative Analysis of the Relation Between Political Trust and Forms of Political Participation in Europe. European Societies, 15(1), 131– 152. doi:10.1080/14616696.2012.692807
Jung, N., Kim, Y., & Zúñiga, H. G. de. (2011). The Mediating Role of Knowledge and Efficacy in the Effects of Communication on Political Participation. Mass
Lee, H., & Kwak, N. (2014). The Affect Effect of Political Satire: Sarcastic Humor, Negative Emotions, and Political Participation. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 307– 328. doi:10.1080/15205436.2014.891133
McCluskey, M. R., Deshpande, S., Shah, D. V., & McLeod, D. M. (2004). The Efficacy Gap and Political Participation: When Political Influence Fails to Meet Expectations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(4), 437–455.
doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh038
Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Communication and Citizenship: Mapping the Political Effects of Infotainment. Mass Communication and Society, 8(2), 111–131. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0802_3
Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation into the Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages. Communication
Monographs, 74(1), 29–54. doi:10.1080/03637750701196896
Newton, K. (1999). Mass Media Effects: Mobilization or Media Malaise? British Journal of Political Science, 29(04), 577–599. doi:null
Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407– 1413. doi:10.2307/1963953
Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., & Fortman, K. K. J. (1998). Relationships of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 34–49. doi:10.1080/08838159809364433
Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2011). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 1464884911427803. doi:10.1177/1464884911427803
Rill, L. A., & Cardiel, C. L. B. (2013). Funny, Ha-Ha: The Impact of User-Generated Political Satire on Political Attitudes. American Behavioral Scientist, 0002764213489016. doi:10.1177/0002764213489016
Southwell, P. L., & Pirch, K. D. (2003). Political Cynicism and the Mobilization of Black Voters*. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 906–917.
doi:10.1046/j.0038-4941.2003.08404020.x
Uribe, R., & Gunter, B. (2007). Are `Sensational’ News Stories More Likely to Trigger Viewers’ Emotions than Non-Sensational News Stories? A Content Analysis of British TV News. European Journal of Communication, 22(2), 207–228. doi:10.1177/0267323107076770
Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1051–1072.
doi:10.2307/2998592
Vreese, C. de. (2004). The Effects of Strategic News on Political Cynicism, Issue Evaluations, and Policy Support: A Two-Wave Experiment. Mass Communication and Society, 7(2), 191–214. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0702_4
Young, D. G. (2004). Late-Night Comedy in Election 2000: Its Influence on Candidate Trait Ratings and the Moderating Effects of Political Knowledge and Partisanship. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(1), 1–22.
doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4801_1
Young, D. G., & Hoffman, L. (2012). Acquisition of Current-Events Knowledge From Political Satire Programming: An Experimental Approach. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 20(5), 290–304. doi:10.1080/15456870.2012.728121
Zhang, W., Johnson, T. J., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. L. (2009). The Revolution Will Be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior. Social Science Computer Review. doi:10.1177/0894439309335162
Appendix A
Original and non-translated form of consent
Geachte deelnemer,
U bent uitgenodigd deel te nemen aan een onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd onder
verantwoordelijkheid van onderzoeksinstituut ASCoR, onderdeel van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. ASCoR doet wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar media en communicatie in de samenleving. Het onderzoek waarvoor uw medewerking wordt gevraagd, is getiteld ‘Politiek Nieuws’. Tijdens dit onderzoek krijgt u een fragment te zien. Hierna wordt er een aantal vragen gesteld over uw mening omtrent de politiek. Er zijn geen foute antwoorden. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 5 minuten. Omdat dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder de verantwoordelijkheid van ASCoR, Universiteit van Amsterdam, heeft u de garantie dat:
1. Uw anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat uw antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele voorwaarde aan derden zullen worden verstrekt, tenzij u hiervoor van tevoren uitdrukkelijke toestemming hebt verleend.
2. U zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee te doen aan het onderzoek of uw deelname voortijdig kunt afbreken. Ook kunt u achteraf (binnen 24 uur na deelname) uw toestemming intrekken voor het gebruik van uw antwoorden of gegevens voor het onderzoek.
3. Deelname aan het onderzoek geen noemenswaardige risico’s of ongemakken voor u met zich meebrengt, geen moedwillige misleiding plaatsvindt, en u niet met expliciet aanstootgevend materiaal zult worden geconfronteerd.
4. U uiterlijk 5 maanden na afloop van het onderzoek de beschikking over een onderzoeksrapportage kunt krijgen waarin de algemene resultaten van het onderzoek worden toegelicht.
Voor meer informatie over dit onderzoek en de uitnodiging tot deelname kunt u te allen tijde contact opnemen met de projectleider Nienke Izelaar, via nienke.izelaar@student.uva.nl Mochten er naar aanleiding van uw deelname aan dit onderzoek bij u toch klachten of opmerkingen zijn over het verloop van het onderzoek en de daarbij gevolgde procedure, dan kunt u contact opnemen met het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Een vertrouwelijke behandeling van uw klacht of opmerking is daarbij gewaarborgd. Ik hoop u hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd en dank u bij voorbaat hartelijk voor uw
deelname aan dit onderzoek dat voor mij van grote waarde is. Met vriendelijke groet,
Appendix B
Original and non-translated questionnaire
Q17 Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet in de uitnodigingsmail voor dit onderzoek. Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef op te geven. Ik besef dat ik op elk moment mag stoppen met het onderzoek. Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten gebruikt worden in wetenschappelijke publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, dan zal dit volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens worden niet door derden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming. Als ik meer informatie wil, nu of in de toekomst, dan kan ik me wenden tot projectleider drs. M. Boukes (m.boukes@uva.nl; Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam). Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kan ik me wenden tot het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
Ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ga akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek. Ik ga akkoord (1)
Q2 Wat is uw geslacht? Man (1)
Vrouw (2)
Q3 Wat is uw leeftijd?
Q4 Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleidingsniveau? Basisschool (1)
Middelbare school (2)
Hoger Beroepsonderwijs / Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (Bachelor) (3) Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (Master) (4)
PhD (5)
Anders, namelijk (6) ____________________
Q5 Hoe geïnteresseerd bent u in de politiek? Helemaal niet geïnteresseerd (1) Niet geïnteresseerd (2) Neutraal (3) Geïnteresseerd (4) Heel erg geïnteresseerd (5) 1 (1)
Q6 Wat is uw politieke voorkeur? Zeer progressief (1) Progressief (2) Neutraal (3) Conservatief (4) Zeer conservatief (5)
Q35 U krijgt nu een fragment te zien. Bekijk het fragment alstublieft aandachtig voor u doorgaat naar de volgende vragen. Let op: U kunt pas verder klikken naar de volgende vragen nadat het fragment is afgelopen.
Q26 De volgende vragen gaan over uw mening over politiek. Lees de vragen aandachtig alvorens te antwoorden. Er zijn geen foute antwoorden.
Q10 In welke mate bent u het eens of oneens met de volgende stellingen: Zeer mee oneens (1) Mee oneens (2) Niet mee eens en niet mee oneens (3)
Mee eens (4) Zeer mee eens (5) Politiek is soms zo moeilijk dat iemand als ik niet begrijpt waar het over
gaat. (1) Ik begrijp goed welke belangrijke politieke onderwerpen in ons land spelen. (2) Ik ben gekwalificeerd om mee te doen in de politiek. (3)
Ik zou het niet erg goed doen
in een publieke functie als de meeste mensen. (4) Ik ben beter geïnformeerd over de politiek en de overheid dan de meeste mensen. (5)
Q11 In welke mate bent u het eens of oneens met de volgende stellingen: Zeer mee oneens (1) Mee oneens (2) Niet mee eens en niet mee oneens (3)
Mee eens (4) Zeer mee eens (5) Mensen zoals ik hebben geen invloed op wat de overheid doet. (1) Ambtenaren interesseren zich in wat mensen als ik vinden en denken. (2) De overheid doet wat wij van haar vragen. (3)
Het beleid van de overheid is niet effectief en werkt niet
goed (4)
Answer If ZML TTIP Is Displayed Or Nieuwsuur TTIP Is Displayed Q43 Na het zien van het fragment:
Zeer mee oneens (1) Mee oneens (2) Niet mee eens en niet mee oneens (3)
Mee eens (4) Zeer mee eens (5) Begrijp ik goed hoe TTIP werkt. (1) Ben ik beter geïnformeerd over TTIP dan de meeste mensen. (2) Mensen zoals ik hebben geen invloed op wat de overheid doet met TTIP. (3) De overheid doet met TTIP
wat wij van haar vragen. (4) Het beslissingen van de overheid omtrent TTIP zijn niet effectief. (5)
Answer If ZML Rochdale Is Displayed Or Nieuwsuur Rochdale Is Displayed Q44 Na het zien van het fragment:
Zeer mee oneens (1) Mee oneens (2) Niet mee eens en niet mee oneens (3) Mee eens (4) Zeer mee eens (5) Begrijp ik goed hoe
woningcorporaties werken. (1) Ben ik beter geïnformeerd over woningcorporaties dan de meeste mensen. (2) Mensen zoals ik hebben geen invloed op wat de overheid doet met woningcorporaties. (3) De overheid doet met woningcorporaties
wat wij van haar vragen. (4) Het beslissingen van de overheid omtrent woningcorporaties
zijn niet effectief. (5)
Answer If Controlegroep Is Displayed
Q12 In welke mate bent u van plan de volgende acties uit te voeren.In de komende 12 maanden, ben ik van plan om:
Ja, zeker weten (1) Ja, misschien (2) Nee (3) Lid te worden van een
politieke partij (1)
Vrijwilligerswerk te doen voor een politieke partij of
polticus (2)
Mee te doen in een
demonstratie (3)
Een petitie te tekenen
(4)
Contact te zoeken met
een politicus (5)
Politiek te bespreken
met anderen (6)
Gebruik te maken van stickers of buttons van
een politieke partij of politicus (7)
Answer If ZML TTIP Is Displayed Or Nieuwsuur TTIP Is Displayed
Q38 In welke mate bent u van plan de volgende acties uit te voeren.In de komende 12 maanden, ben ik van plan om:
Ja, zeker weten (1) Ja, misschien (2) Nee (3) Lid te worden van een
politieke partij (1)
Vrijwilligerswerk te doen voor een politieke partij of
polticus (2)
Mee te doen in een demonstratie voor/tegen TTIP (3)
Een petitie te tekenen
voor/tegen TTIP (4)
Contact te zoeken met een politicus over TTIP
(5)
TTIP te bespreken met
anderen (6)
Gebruik te maken van stickers of buttons van
een politieke partij of politicus (7)
Answer If ZML Rochdale Is Displayed Or Nieuwsuur Rochdale Is Displayed
Q39 In welke mate bent u van plan de volgende acties uit te voeren.In de komende 12 maanden, ben ik van plan om:
Ja, zeker weten (1) Ja, misschien (2) Nee (3) Lid te worden van een
politieke partij (1)
Vrijwilligerswerk te doen voor een politieke partij of
polticus (2)
Mee te doen in een demonstratie
voor/tegen woningcorporaties (3)
Een petitie te tekenen voor/tegen woningcorporaties (4)
Contact te zoeken met een politicus over woningcorporaties (5) Woningcorporaties te bespreken met anderen (6)
Gebruik te maken van stickers of buttons van
een politieke partij of politicus (7)
Answer If Controlegroep Is Displayed
Q13 In welke mate bent u van plan de volgende acties uit te voeren.In de komende 12 maanden, ben ik van plan om:
Ja, zeker weten (1) Ja, misschien (2) Nee (3) Een politieke partij of
politicus te volgen op sociale media (1)
Een sociale media-groep rondom een politieke discussie of onderwerp te volgen
(2)
Een bericht met politieke inhoud te
posten, liken of doorsturen via sociale
media. (3)
Artikelen of blogs met politieke inhoud te lezen of bekijken (4)
Answer If ZML TTIP Is Displayed Or Nieuwsuur TTIP Is Displayed
Q40 In welke mate bent u van plan de volgende acties uit te voeren.In de komende 12 maanden, ben ik van plan om:
Ja, zeker weten (1) Ja, misschien (2) Nee (3) Een politieke partij of
politicus te volgen op sociale media (1)
Een sociale media-groep rondom TTIP te
volgen (2)
Een bericht over TTIP te posten, liken of doorsturen via sociale
media. (3)
Artikelen of blogs over TTIP te lezen of
bekijken (4)
Answer If ZML Rochdale Is Displayed Or Nieuwsuur Rochdale Is Displayed
Q41 In welke mate bent u van plan de volgende acties uit te voeren.In de komende 12 maanden, ben ik van plan om:
Ja, zeker weten (1) Ja, misschien (2) Nee (3) Een politieke partij of
politicus te volgen op sociale media (1)
Een sociale media-groep rondom woningcorporaties te
volgen (2)
Een bericht over woningcorporaties te posten, liken of door te
sturen via sociale media. (3)
Artikelen of blogs over woningcorporaties te
lezen of bekijken (4)
