academic work
CV
GOOGLE SCHOLAR
Researchgate
ORCID
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLICATIONS
Journal Articles
(6) Motta, M., Chapman, D., Stecula, D.A. and Haglin, K. (2019). "An Experimental Examination of Measurement Disparities in Public Climate Change Beliefs," Climatic Change.
(5) Stecula, D.A. and Merkley, E. (2019). "Framing Climate Change: Economics, Ideology, and Uncertainty in American News Media Content from 1988 to 2014," Frontiers in Communication.
(4) Merkley, E. and Stecula, D.A. (2018). "Party Elites or Manufactured Doubt? The Informational Context of Climate Change Polarization," Science Communication 40(2), 258-274.
(3) Wlezien, C., Soroka, S.N. and Stecula, D.A. (2017). "A Cross-National Analysis of the Causes and Consequences of Economic News," Social Science Quarterly 98(3), 1010-1025.
(2) Soroka, S.N., Stecula, D.A. and Wlezien, C. (2015). "It's (Change in) the (Future) Economy, Stupid: Economic Indicators, the Media, and Public Opinion," American Journal of Political Science 59(2), 457-474.
(1) Thrall, A.T., Stecula, D.A. and Sweet, D. (2014). "May We Have Your Attention Please? Human Rights NGOs and the Problem of Global Communication," The International Journal of Press/Politics 19(2), 135-159.
- Journal version
- Commentary based on the article in Washington Post (Monkey Cage)
- Article in Slate
- Article on Harvard's Journalist's Resource
Book Chapters
(2) Thrall, A.T. and Stecula, D.A. (2017) "All the World’s a Stage: The Rise of Transnational Celebrity Advocacy for Human Rights" in Howard Tumber and Silvio Waisbord (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Media and Human Rights, Oxford: Routledge.
(1) Thrall, A.T., Stecula, D.A., and Moyer, R. (2014). Building a Better Boomerang? Human Rights, NGOs and the New Media ; Forthcoming in Franziska Oehmer (Ed.), Politische Interessenvermittlung und Medien. Funktionen, Formen und Folgen medialer Kommunikation von Parteien, Verbänden und sozialen Bewegungen (eng. Political Interest Representation and the Media. Functions, Forms and Follow-up of online and mass communication of Parties, Interest Groups and Social Movements), Nomos Publisher.
CURRENT RESEARCH PROJECTS
The projects that I currently am working on span several subfields, primarily political communication, political behavior, and science communication.
The Dynamics of Polarization: How the Media and Party Elites Facilitated the Growth of Climate Skepticism with Eric Merkley (under review at the British Journal of Political Science)
Abstract: Commentators are often perplexed about American polarization on issues where there is scientific consensus. One such issue is climate change. This article explores how the dynamics of climate change news media coverage contributed to polarizing the American public. We show that climate skepticism has been on the rise in America by constructing a “mood” measure going back to 1992 using the Roper Centre polling archive. We use automated and human content analysis of nearly 12,000 news articles published by the New York Times, Washington Post and the USA Today over a 34 year period (1980-2014) to show that journalistic “balance” in climate coverage has declined overtime, while politicization has steadily increased. We provide evidence using simple time series models that rising skepticism is primarily a result of party elite-driven persuasion facilitated by a proliferation of party cues in media coverage. Democratic cues, higher in volume and more consistent in direction, appear to drive public skepticism rather than being primarily influenced by Republican elites. The results conform to Berinsky’s elite cue theory and suggest we should see climate change polarization as a more typical case of public opinion formation.
Vaccine Consensus: Partisanship, Ideology, and Vaccine Attitudes in the American Public with APPC 2018-2019 ASK Group (to be submitted)
Abstract:
Objectives
To examine the relationship between partisanship, ideology, and vaccine attitudes.
Methods
Utilizing data from a nationally representative survey of 1,800 Americans, we assess the effects of partisanship and ideology on vaccine attitudes.
Results
Controlling for confounding factors, we find partisan differences among the most ideological Americans on support for pro-vaccination policies and on broad vaccine misinformation levels. These small differences should not obscure the fact that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support strong, pro-vaccine laws. Although there are no substantive partisan differences in perceptions of vaccine risks or efficacy for either the flu or MMR vaccine, differences do exist for the HPV one.
Conclusions
We find a strong consensus on the importance of governmental action to protect the public through vaccination. Nonetheless, some worrisome partisan differences exist. Politicization of the vaccine debate should be viewed as a dangerous prospect as views related to MMR vaccines might follow the already polarized views of HPV vaccination.
Can Cross-Party Dialogue Bridge Partisan Divide? with Matt Levendusky
Abstract: Over the last few decades, Americans have become more affectively polarized: ordinary Democrats and Republicans dislike and distrust members of the opposing party today more than they did a few decades ago. This paper investigates one intervention designed to ameliorate such partisan animus: having ordinary Democrats and Republicans come together for cross-party political discussions, which builds on a large social scientific literature documenting the effectiveness of intergroup contact for reducing discord between social groups.
Wicked Witch of the West? Dr. Oz, Alternative Health News Consumption & Anti-Vaccine Views in the United States with Matt Motta and Ozan Kuru
Abstract: Media figures like Dr. Oz, whose programs provide a platform for alternative health and medical views, have become household names in the United States. Surprisingly, though, few have examined the prevalence and correlates of alternative health (AH) news consumption. Fewer still have investigated whether or not AH news consumption contributes to the prevalence of anti-vaccine misinformation in the US. In a large national probability-based longitudinal survey, we find that 63% of Americans – especially minorities, women, and Americans with low educational attainment – consume at least some amount of news that features AH content. Consistent with our expectations, we find that increased AH news consumption is associated with holding views about vaccines that are inconsistent with scientific consensus; including perceptions that the flu and MMR vaccines are more risky, and the perception that the MMR vaccine is not effective. We further demonstrate the persuasive power of AH news by making use of a naturally-occurring experiment, in which daytime television host Dr. Oz reversed his previously-held position on MMR vaccine safety. We show that regular Oz viewers who knew the least about vaccines became more likely to accept scientific consensus on vaccine safety. Our study demonstrates the persuasive power of AH news, and underscores the need for additional efforts to understand the effects of media consumption on public health opinion, and the potentially persuasive effects that daytime television and other alternative news sources might have on society in other domains, from health to politics.
Source Credibility in the Age of Misinformation
Abstract: Since the 2016 Presidential election in the United States, much attention has been paid to the rise of the so-called “fake news,” or fabricated content deceptively presented as real news, and its impact on the American democracy (Allcott & Gentzkow 2017, Pennycook & Rand 2018, among others). Much of the resulting research has focused on different effects of fake news, while overlooking a more fundamental issue: are people able to effectively judge the quality of information sources that they encounter in their daily life. Much of the research on source credibility dates back half a century and generally found that people discount information from “untrustworthy” sources at the moment of encountering the information (Hovland & Weiss 1951). Much less is know about how do people attribute credibility to sources in a current fragmented informational environment. In this paper, I address these issues by conducting a survey experiment of 1000 American adults on the Prolific survey platform. The specific research questions of interest to me are: what media outlets are viewed as credible? Are people able to spot fake news sources? How does news content moderate the perception of source credibility? This paper serves as the first step in understanding which news media outlets are viewed as credible by Americans, whether these assignments are affected by partisan content of the news, and who, ultimately, is most gullible to misinformation online.
Politicized News: How the News Media Contributed to the Polarized Climate in the United States
Abstract: This paper focuses on two things: an examination of how the news media content changed as the media landscape has been transformed by the digital revolution, and then descriptively links these changes to polarization patterns in the United States.
Is Science in Crisis? Public Perceptions of the Challenges in Scientific Process and How It Matters with Ozan Kuru and Kathleen Hall Jamieson
A National Experiment on the MMR-Vaccine: Debunking TV News Good Alone Can Boost Delayed Misinformation in the US with Ozan Kuru and the APPC 2018-2019 ASK Group
Abstract: Standalone expert messages about the benefits of the MMR vaccine (a) yield lower vaccine perceptions, support for pro-vaccine policy, intentions to encourage parents to vaccinate their children, and probability of sending a letter to a state representative and behavioral intentions but (b) yield a delayed influence of vaccine misinformation when placed second, as a correction for the misinformation.
Partisanship and Legitimacy of the Supreme Court with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Ken Winneg
Climate Change Beliefs Among American Elected Officials with Nathan Lee
Analysis of the coverage of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates with Meredith Conroy, Sean Long, and Erin Cassese
Experts in the News and Anti-Intellectual Views Among American Public with Matt Motta
Abstract: This paper examines the ways in which the news media covered experts over time, and how that coverage might have influenced the rise of anti-intellectual attitudes among the American public.
The projects that I currently am working on span several subfields, primarily political communication, political behavior, and science communication.
The Dynamics of Polarization: How the Media and Party Elites Facilitated the Growth of Climate Skepticism with Eric Merkley (under review at the British Journal of Political Science)
Abstract: Commentators are often perplexed about American polarization on issues where there is scientific consensus. One such issue is climate change. This article explores how the dynamics of climate change news media coverage contributed to polarizing the American public. We show that climate skepticism has been on the rise in America by constructing a “mood” measure going back to 1992 using the Roper Centre polling archive. We use automated and human content analysis of nearly 12,000 news articles published by the New York Times, Washington Post and the USA Today over a 34 year period (1980-2014) to show that journalistic “balance” in climate coverage has declined overtime, while politicization has steadily increased. We provide evidence using simple time series models that rising skepticism is primarily a result of party elite-driven persuasion facilitated by a proliferation of party cues in media coverage. Democratic cues, higher in volume and more consistent in direction, appear to drive public skepticism rather than being primarily influenced by Republican elites. The results conform to Berinsky’s elite cue theory and suggest we should see climate change polarization as a more typical case of public opinion formation.
Vaccine Consensus: Partisanship, Ideology, and Vaccine Attitudes in the American Public with APPC 2018-2019 ASK Group (to be submitted)
Abstract:
Objectives
To examine the relationship between partisanship, ideology, and vaccine attitudes.
Methods
Utilizing data from a nationally representative survey of 1,800 Americans, we assess the effects of partisanship and ideology on vaccine attitudes.
Results
Controlling for confounding factors, we find partisan differences among the most ideological Americans on support for pro-vaccination policies and on broad vaccine misinformation levels. These small differences should not obscure the fact that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support strong, pro-vaccine laws. Although there are no substantive partisan differences in perceptions of vaccine risks or efficacy for either the flu or MMR vaccine, differences do exist for the HPV one.
Conclusions
We find a strong consensus on the importance of governmental action to protect the public through vaccination. Nonetheless, some worrisome partisan differences exist. Politicization of the vaccine debate should be viewed as a dangerous prospect as views related to MMR vaccines might follow the already polarized views of HPV vaccination.
Can Cross-Party Dialogue Bridge Partisan Divide? with Matt Levendusky
Abstract: Over the last few decades, Americans have become more affectively polarized: ordinary Democrats and Republicans dislike and distrust members of the opposing party today more than they did a few decades ago. This paper investigates one intervention designed to ameliorate such partisan animus: having ordinary Democrats and Republicans come together for cross-party political discussions, which builds on a large social scientific literature documenting the effectiveness of intergroup contact for reducing discord between social groups.
Wicked Witch of the West? Dr. Oz, Alternative Health News Consumption & Anti-Vaccine Views in the United States with Matt Motta and Ozan Kuru
Abstract: Media figures like Dr. Oz, whose programs provide a platform for alternative health and medical views, have become household names in the United States. Surprisingly, though, few have examined the prevalence and correlates of alternative health (AH) news consumption. Fewer still have investigated whether or not AH news consumption contributes to the prevalence of anti-vaccine misinformation in the US. In a large national probability-based longitudinal survey, we find that 63% of Americans – especially minorities, women, and Americans with low educational attainment – consume at least some amount of news that features AH content. Consistent with our expectations, we find that increased AH news consumption is associated with holding views about vaccines that are inconsistent with scientific consensus; including perceptions that the flu and MMR vaccines are more risky, and the perception that the MMR vaccine is not effective. We further demonstrate the persuasive power of AH news by making use of a naturally-occurring experiment, in which daytime television host Dr. Oz reversed his previously-held position on MMR vaccine safety. We show that regular Oz viewers who knew the least about vaccines became more likely to accept scientific consensus on vaccine safety. Our study demonstrates the persuasive power of AH news, and underscores the need for additional efforts to understand the effects of media consumption on public health opinion, and the potentially persuasive effects that daytime television and other alternative news sources might have on society in other domains, from health to politics.
Source Credibility in the Age of Misinformation
Abstract: Since the 2016 Presidential election in the United States, much attention has been paid to the rise of the so-called “fake news,” or fabricated content deceptively presented as real news, and its impact on the American democracy (Allcott & Gentzkow 2017, Pennycook & Rand 2018, among others). Much of the resulting research has focused on different effects of fake news, while overlooking a more fundamental issue: are people able to effectively judge the quality of information sources that they encounter in their daily life. Much of the research on source credibility dates back half a century and generally found that people discount information from “untrustworthy” sources at the moment of encountering the information (Hovland & Weiss 1951). Much less is know about how do people attribute credibility to sources in a current fragmented informational environment. In this paper, I address these issues by conducting a survey experiment of 1000 American adults on the Prolific survey platform. The specific research questions of interest to me are: what media outlets are viewed as credible? Are people able to spot fake news sources? How does news content moderate the perception of source credibility? This paper serves as the first step in understanding which news media outlets are viewed as credible by Americans, whether these assignments are affected by partisan content of the news, and who, ultimately, is most gullible to misinformation online.
Politicized News: How the News Media Contributed to the Polarized Climate in the United States
Abstract: This paper focuses on two things: an examination of how the news media content changed as the media landscape has been transformed by the digital revolution, and then descriptively links these changes to polarization patterns in the United States.
Is Science in Crisis? Public Perceptions of the Challenges in Scientific Process and How It Matters with Ozan Kuru and Kathleen Hall Jamieson
A National Experiment on the MMR-Vaccine: Debunking TV News Good Alone Can Boost Delayed Misinformation in the US with Ozan Kuru and the APPC 2018-2019 ASK Group
Abstract: Standalone expert messages about the benefits of the MMR vaccine (a) yield lower vaccine perceptions, support for pro-vaccine policy, intentions to encourage parents to vaccinate their children, and probability of sending a letter to a state representative and behavioral intentions but (b) yield a delayed influence of vaccine misinformation when placed second, as a correction for the misinformation.
Partisanship and Legitimacy of the Supreme Court with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Ken Winneg
Climate Change Beliefs Among American Elected Officials with Nathan Lee
Analysis of the coverage of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates with Meredith Conroy, Sean Long, and Erin Cassese
Experts in the News and Anti-Intellectual Views Among American Public with Matt Motta
Abstract: This paper examines the ways in which the news media covered experts over time, and how that coverage might have influenced the rise of anti-intellectual attitudes among the American public.
