Snapshot of my academic work:
- My CV is here.
- My Google Scholar profile is here.
- My ResearchGate profile is here.
- My ORCID profile is here.
- My MediaWell profile is here.
PUBLICATIONS
Book
(1) Levendusky, M. and Stecula, D.A. (2021). "We Need to Talk: How Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization" forthcoming in Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Elements in Experimental Political Science series.
Book
(1) Levendusky, M. and Stecula, D.A. (2021). "We Need to Talk: How Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization" forthcoming in Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Elements in Experimental Political Science series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
(13) Stecula, D.A. and Pickup, M. (2021). "How populism and conservative media fuel conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and what it means for COVID-19 behaviors," forthcoming in Research & Politics.
(12) Lee, N.R. and Stecula, D.A. (2021). "Subnational Bipartisanship on Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys of Local and State Policymakers," forthcoming in Climatic Change.
(11) Stecula, D.A., Kuru, O., Albarracin, D., and Jamieson, K.H. (2020). "Policy Views and Negative Beliefs About Vaccines in the United States, 2019," American Journal of Public Health.
(10) Pickup, M., Stecula, D.A., and van der Linden, C. (2020). "Novel coronavirus, old partisanship: COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors in the United States and Canada," Canadian Journal of Political Science.
(9) Motta, M., Stecula, D.A., and Farhart, C. (2020). "How Right-Leaning Media Coverage of COVID-19 Facilitated the Spread of Misinformation in the Early Stages of the Pandemic," Canadian Journal of Political Science.
(8) Merkley, E. and Stecula, D.A. (2020). "Party Cues in the News: Democratic Elites, Republican Backlash and the Dynamics of Climate Skepticism," British Journal of Political Science.
(7) Stecula, D.A., Kuru, O., and Jamieson, K.H. (2020). "How trust in experts and media use affect acceptance of common anti-vaccination claims," HKS Misinformation Review 1(1).
(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.
Book Chapters & Edited Volumes
(3) Stecula, D.A. (2019) "Source credibility in the age of fake news" in Sara Bannerman, Tony Porter and Netina Tan (Eds.), Digitization and Challenges to Democracy, Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition (IGHC) at McMaster University Working Paper 19/1.
(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.
(13) Stecula, D.A. and Pickup, M. (2021). "How populism and conservative media fuel conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and what it means for COVID-19 behaviors," forthcoming in Research & Politics.
- Journal version coming soon
- Replication data
(12) Lee, N.R. and Stecula, D.A. (2021). "Subnational Bipartisanship on Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys of Local and State Policymakers," forthcoming in Climatic Change.
(11) Stecula, D.A., Kuru, O., Albarracin, D., and Jamieson, K.H. (2020). "Policy Views and Negative Beliefs About Vaccines in the United States, 2019," American Journal of Public Health.
(10) Pickup, M., Stecula, D.A., and van der Linden, C. (2020). "Novel coronavirus, old partisanship: COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors in the United States and Canada," Canadian Journal of Political Science.
(9) Motta, M., Stecula, D.A., and Farhart, C. (2020). "How Right-Leaning Media Coverage of COVID-19 Facilitated the Spread of Misinformation in the Early Stages of the Pandemic," Canadian Journal of Political Science.
(8) Merkley, E. and Stecula, D.A. (2020). "Party Cues in the News: Democratic Elites, Republican Backlash and the Dynamics of Climate Skepticism," British Journal of Political Science.
(7) Stecula, D.A., Kuru, O., and Jamieson, K.H. (2020). "How trust in experts and media use affect acceptance of common anti-vaccination claims," HKS Misinformation Review 1(1).
(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 & Edited Volumes
(3) Stecula, D.A. (2019) "Source credibility in the age of fake news" in Sara Bannerman, Tony Porter and Netina Tan (Eds.), Digitization and Challenges to Democracy, Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition (IGHC) at McMaster University Working Paper 19/1.
(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. Here is a snapshot of few of the papers that I'm working on.
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.
The projects that I currently am working on span several subfields, primarily political communication, political behavior, and science communication. Here is a snapshot of few of the papers that I'm working on.
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.
