|
Political tolerance of environmental protest:
The roles of generalized and specialized information
by
Catherine A. Steele, Ph.D.*
Carol M. Liebler, Ph.D.
S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University
215 University Place
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
*Both authors contributed equally to this paper
Contact:
C. A. Steele
(315) 443-4118
[log in to unmask]
Paper submitted to the Mass Communication and Society Division of
AEJMC, April 1, 1996.
Political tolerance of environmental protest:
The roles of generalized and specialized information
TYPICAL EARTH FIRST! PROTEST:
SPONTANEOUS, LEADERLESS, ACTIVISM:
LONGTIME GROUP MEMBER SAYS 'ACTIONS'
SUCH AS MONDAY'S BLOCKAGE OF TOLLWAY CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT ARE USUALLY LAST MINUTE EFFORTS
(Los Angeles Times, Sept. 28, 1993, p. A17)
Introduction.
The above headline is illustrative of the media's tendency to
challenge the legitimacy of social protest while often highlighting the threat
it poses to society (Gitlin, 1980; Shoemaker, 1984). Certainly Earth First! can
be considered among the more radical of environmental groups, but framing
environmentalists and environmental protesters as deviants is not unique to this
group. Furthermore, according to Corbet (1995), national environmental groups do
not have much power over how they are covered, although more prestigious groups
such as the Sierra Club may carry more weight with media gatekeepers. Other
research, such as that by Liebler & Bendix (in press), reveals that while news
stories are frequently pegged to protest, the framing of environmental
controversy is often oversimplified. Media accounts emphasize frames not reliant
upon complex scientific arguments D typically those counter to environmental
concerns. This may increase the likelihood that environmentalists may be
perceived as less legitimate that other actors involved in a controversy.
The implications of media coverage of environmental issues and
controversy are far reaching. Research reveals a negative relationship between
reliance on television news and environmental knowledge (Steger, Pierce, Lovrich
& Steel, 1988). Yet, in at least two studies, respondents reported television
was their primary source for environmental information (Atwater, Salwen &
Anderson, 1985; Wilson, 1993). Newspaper reliance elicits higher levels of
environmental knowledge (Steger et al., 1988), but nonetheless, the
environmental knowledge levels among the U. S. public are rather poor (Arcury,
1990; Wilson, 1993).
Where and how people seek policy-related information and their
ensuing knowledge and attitudes are central to the democratic process. Arguably,
no concept is more germane to the heart of democratic society than the focus of
this studyD political tolerance.
Researchers began to focus on political tolerance, defined as the
public's support for others' rights, during the Red Scare of the 1940's and
1950's. During this period, a conceptual definition emerged as the public's
support for civil liberties such as free speech, free press, and free assembly
(Stouffer, 1955) as it applied to "non-conformist" groups. Yet, despite some 40
years of scholarship, we lack compelling models to explain how one becomes
tolerant.
Moreover, despite a richness of this research literature,
comparatively few studies have attempted to study contemporary targets of
intolerance. The National Opinion Research Center has established a trend study
on tolerance in its General Social Survey (GSS). The GSS has focused on the
"traditional" targets of intolerance which include homosexuals, atheists,
communists, militarists, and racists. While the GSS items have generated
substantive conclusions about political tolerance, Gibson (1992) has recommended
that researchers update items to reflect contemporary social targets.
Our study examines tolerance of environmentalists, and specifically,
environmental protest. Of significance to such study is the recognition that
political tolerance may be situational. We explore three dimensions of
situational tolerance: (1) the perceived morality and legality of environmental
protest, (2) the actors involved in the protest, and (3) the degree of
personalized threat.
The main predictors of our study draw upon past research relating
media use and information seeking to levels of tolerance, but we modify the
model to distinguish between generalized and specialized information seeking.
Previous research suggests that it is reasonable to expect that these forms of
information seeking may be related to education.
Correlates of Political Tolerance.
Scholars have suspected that individuals become tolerant through the
workings of socialization agents, especially the school system and the media.
The most frequent correlate of political tolerance in the United States is
education (Stouffer, 1955, Prothro & Grigg, 1960; Davis, 1975; Wilson, 1975;
Lawrence, 1976; Nunn, Crockett & williams, 1978; Bobo & Licari, 1989; McLeod,
Steele, Chi & Huang, 1991). But while education may lead to tolerance through
shaping one's libertarian values (Golebiouska, 1995), and cognitive complexity
may mediate this influence (Bobo & Licari, 1989), why these outcomes occur
remains unexplained.
What characteristics of individual's experiences with these agents
matter? In this study, we suggest a complementary relationship between education
and media usage through one's adopted patterns of information seeking and
processing, which in turn affect political tolerance. Specifically, we
investigate the effects of two dominant models that bridge educational and media
experiences.
Our first working explanation for tolerance may be conceptually
defined as the "generalized experience" model. Colleges offer students
opportunities to socialize where they may meet others who live entirely
different lifestyles than themselves. For this study, we assume that as
education increases, one's exposure to a variety of people also increases.
Education may also influence how people seek and use information about
the environment when covered in the media.
Media use may complement this generalized model. This model draws on
research findings which establish a negative relationship between viewing
television programming and tolerance. These studies tend to derive theoretically
from Gerbner's cultivation theory. Cultivation research suggests that heavy
viewers of television programming may lead to their perceptions of social
reality as consonant with television programming. At one time, researchers
believed that increased diversity of mediated information offered the hope of
greater tolerance through individuals' exposure to the media (Stouffer, 1955).
But, framing research suggests a previously unexplored explanation for this
negative relationship (e.g., Iyengar, 1991). That is, if media coverage is
consonant and portrayals of protests emphasize deviance, then increased exposure
to general media content may decrease tolerance.
Evidence supporting a path to tolerance through cognition suggests a
relationship between information processing strategies and tolerance. Previous
research has documented the relationship between information processing
strategies used for general media consumption and knowledge (Kosicki & McLeod,
1990). Three strategies have emerged as consistent dimensions: (1) reflective
integration, (2) active processing, and (3) selective scanning (Kosicki, McLeod
& Amor, 1986). Whereas individuals who employ a selective scanning strategy tune
out information, those who actively process information spend time trying to
interpret information. Individuals who use a reflective integration strategy
incorporate new information into existing schemata. These general strategies
have been tested in previous research on tolerance (McLeod, Guo, Huang, Rzeszut
& Voakes, 1992) but have found mixed support. Their impact on situational
tolerance is a subject of investigation in this paper.
Our second working explanation for tolerance may be defined as the
"specialized model," which includes focused information seeking and specific
college experience. Colleges require that students "major" or specialize in a
particular subject area. Our model proposes that subject matter will have a
differential influence on tolerance. Taking courses in environmental studies,
for example, provides students with a core of knowledge and, as students advance
in class standing, their knowledge level increases. Presumably, through this
increase in knowledge, students may better understand the justifications for
protest (Rodeghier, Hall & Useem, 1991); this may lead to increased tolerance,
although we suggest that a number of factors may affect this relationship.
The specialized model holds that focused media usage is positively
associated with tolerance. Gaining specialized information may influence one's
need for cognition, which has been shown to be a positive predictor for
supporting free speech and press (Andsager, 1994). Moreover, studies have found
a positive relationship between an individual's attention to specific media
content like reading books and magazines (Wilson, 1975) and his or her tolerance
for others. Previous research has not examined the relationship between what
motivates ones' use of information about the environment and tolerance.
To summarize, our study examines the relative contribution of the
generalized and specialized models on individuals' political tolerance of
environmentalists. To better understand how issues of media framing in general
and specific media usage may influence tolerance, we address the importance of
the context in which expression occurs.
Situational tolerance.
The context in which expression occurs is also critical to an
understanding of the dynamics of political tolerance, although the literature
varies on this point. Models based on principled tolerance suggest that
adherence to democratic norms will be associated with tolerance, such that the
expression of tolerance will not vary with the group or act involved (Sniderman,
Tetlock, Glaser, Green & Hout, 1989). Other research has found, however, that
tolerance varies with the activity and situation (Nunn, Crockett & Williams,
1978; Lawrence, 1976; Sullivan, Piereson & Marcus, 1979). In particular,
according to Chanley (1994), tolerance is lower when an activity hits home, or
when there is a clear threat involved: "commitment to tolerance may become
secondary to situational factors, including those who will be affected by
allowing a given activity" (p. 360-361). She argues that an additive index
across tolerance items will measure only tolerance toward the group involved and
will fail to tap the significant variables which may vary by situation.
We explore three dimensions of situational tolerance: (1) the
perceived morality and legality of environmental protest, (2) the actors
involved in the protest, and (3) the degree of personalized threat. Evidence
suggests that these three dimensions may influence individuals' willingness to
tolerate others. First, individuals' beliefs about whether particular protest
actions ought to be permitted influence their tolerance for others' expressions
(Lawrence, 1976). These dimensions are particularly applicable to environmental
protest where there is great diversity among environmental groups and their
strategies and actions (Gottlieb, 1991). Second, the notion that individuals'
tolerance may depend on their feelings toward groups has been a dominant line of
inquiry, primarily through the work of one group of researchers. Sullivan,
Piereson and Marcus (1982) have published studies predicated on a "least-liked"
model of tolerance. An individual is said to be tolerant when he or she upholds
the rights of a group toward which she feels most negative. Accordingly,
according to this line of research, tolerance depends on which group is
involved. Third, research suggests that the degree to which individuals perceive
personal threat influences their tolerance for others (Chanley, 1994; Green &
Waxman, 1987; Davis, 1995). For example, African Americans have been found to
selectively tolerate others, depending on a threat to their existence like the
Ku Klux Klan (Davis, p. 17). This finding supports the importance of
investigating the context for tolerance.
Summary.
What characteristics of individuals' experiences with education and
media matter for political tolerance? In this study, we examine the possibility
of two complementary relationships between education and media usage. We
specifically investigate the effects of two models that bridge educational and
media experiences: a generalized model and a specialized model.
We hypothesize the following relationships:
1) The generalized model (based on general newspaper and
television usage and the information processing strategies of
reflective
integration and active processing) will be negatively related to
situational tolerance.
2) The specialized model (based on focused media usage, classes
taken in environmental studies, and environmental knowledge) will
be
positively related to situational tolerance.
Method
A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to undergraduate
students enrolled in five different courses at a major northeastern university.
Typically, student samples may be criticized on a number of criteria. In this
case, however, we felt that the use of such respondents was justified because we
could effectively operationalize specialized information seeking.
Two goals guided course selection. The five courses were selected to
achieve representation across levels of academic standing (freshman to seniors)
and to represent general and specific experience with environmental issues. We
therefore sampled students enrolled in communications, geography, and
environmental sciences courses. After students were briefed on the purpose of
the study, they completed a 10-minute questionnaire.
We operationalized the dependent variable, situational tolerance, in
terms of students' responses to six different scenarios (see appendix A)
designed to assess supportive decision-making. The scenarios were designed to
vary in terms of the environmental group portrayed, the degree of threat the
activity posted to present lifestyle, and the morality and legality of the
action in which the group was engaged. We chose two environmental groups with
which we thought our respondents would have at least some familiarityD Earth
First! and the Sierra Club. We chose Earth First! because this group receives a
lot of media attention for its "ecoterrorism"; the Sierra Club, as one of the
older conservationist groups, is widely recognized as a very "mainstream"
environmental organization. Of our six scenarios, two depicted activities both
legal and ethical; two were legal, but probably could be considered unethical;
and two were illegal, but probably could be considered ethical. Students were
asked to specify if they supported each of the activities described (no, it
depends, yes).
We measured the generalized information model with two variables for
newspaper and television, respectively (number of hours/minutes of use per day
and number of days per week used). In addition, due to considerably poor
reliability coefficient for the six items, we constructed an additive scale of
four items addressing information seeking and processing. These items were
selected because reflective integration and active processing strategies have
been shown to be related to knowledge. Cronbach's alpha for these four items was
.61.
We operationalized the specialized information model with three major
variables. First, we included items that address the individual's motivations
for seeking news coverage about the media by addressing how the individual makes
use of environmental information. (See appendix A) Cronbach's alpha for these
five items was .84. Second, we measured knowledge based on responses to five
multiple choice items which asked about common environmental concerns such as
global warming. Third, we included a variable that indicates the number of
classes taken in environmental studies.
We placed the two models in a multiple regression equation predicting
each of the six hypothetical tolerance situations. The regression equation
included baseline controls. We controlled for the influence of economic and
social philosophy (liberal or conservative) which has been shown liberalism to
be related to tolerance (e.g., McClosky & Brill, 1983). In addition, we
controlled for respondent's affect toward the group by including a thermometer
measure toward each of the environmental groups.
Results
Our respondents were 225 students enrolled at a major northeastern
university. We selected these students to provide a breadth of academic majors.
Almost as many students were communications majors (26.3%) as environmental
majors (27.2%). The latter includes such major fields as wildlife biology,
environmental sciences, and forestry, for example. Only seven percent identified
themselves as social science majors, and fully 38 percent of the students came
from other disciplines.
Students were reasonably knowledgeable about environmental issues.
The overall mean was 3.87 on a five point knowledge scale. Environmental majors
scored an average of 4.50 on this scale, whereas other students scored 3.64.
It was clear that a great deal of variance was obtained by the
situation specific tolerance scenarios. The majority of students supported the
legal and ethical situation involving Earth First! (61.2%) and involving the
Sierra Club (67.2%), but their support waned across other dimensions of
tolerance (Table 1). The most difficult scenarios for the students to support
were the unethical but legal dimensions. Only about seven percent supported
Earth First's disinformation campaign, and about 11 percent supported the
telephone protest by the Sierra Club.
Students' feelings toward the two groups differed by academic major.
Overall, the mean thermometer rating for the Sierra Club was 59.6 (where zero is
cold and 100 is hot) and about 58 degrees for Earth First!. For environmental
majors, however, the thermometer ratings were 65.1 and 58.1, respectively. For
the rest of the sample, the thermometer ratings were about equivalent to the
overall (Sierra: 57.4 and Earth First! 57.9).
Students' media usage paralleled the national statistics. Overall,
most students relied on television (44.8%) and on newspapers (18.1%) for
environmental news. In sharp contrast, environmental majors did not rely on mass
media as their primary source (31.7% other); as many used television (22%) as
newspaper (22%) for information. The rest of the sample relied on television
(53.3%), newspaper (18.3), and magazines (15.4) for such information.
We examined the hypothesis that respondents will be more likely to be
tolerant when they use specialized information rather than gain general
information from the media. We discuss our findings by first considering the
contribution of each model for the entire sample, for those who are reliant on
television, and for those who are reliant on newspaper. Then, we assess the
results by analyzing each of the three dimensions of situational tolerance.
Finally, we try to explain the findings by weighing in the contribution of their
academic major (as related to environmental studies). Our results encourage
further research on the situational tolerance dimensions.
The contribution of each model.
As predicted, elements in the generalized model tend to negatively
contribute to tolerance. Table 2 shows the beta coefficients and the adjusted R2
for this model after implementing statistical controls. Two coefficients
significantly predict tolerance toward Earth First! The greater the newspaper
use, the less respondents supported Earth First's distribution of leaflets
(-.14). And the more respondents' engaged in reflective integration and active
processing, the less their tolerance for Earth First's disinformation campaign
(-.20). No other coefficients were statistically significant.
Table 3 compares the contribution of the generalized model to the
specialized model in a single equation. This equation assumes that one can
engage in specialized information beyond what one obtains from general media
usage. Results support the negative influence of the generalized model on
tolerance. As Table 3 shows, the majority of coefficients are negatively
directed, although only three reach statistical significance. In contrast, the
focused media use index positively predicted tolerance of Earth First's leaflet
action (.22), of Earth First's chaining themselves to trees (.26), and of the
Sierra Club's sit-in actions (.21). In addition, contrary to expectation, the
greater the number of classes attended, the less the support for the Sierra
Club's telephone protest (-.17). The majority of other indicators for the
specialized model are in the positive direction.
We next considered these results for two subsamples: Those who rely
on television for their environmental information, and those who rely on
newspapers for such information.
Our expectation that the previous results would become stronger once
medium reliance was taken into account, found mixed support. Table 4 displays
the beta coefficients for the generalized model only. Only general newspaper use
reached statistical significance for the Earth First! leaflets action (-.08).
No other relationships obtained significance. Table 5 shows the comparative
strength of relationships for both the general and specific models for those who
rely on television for their environmental information. Consistent with our
expectations, focused media usage positively predicted tolerance of the Earth
First! leaflet action (.43), of Earth First's chaining themselves to trees
(.34), and of the Sierra Club's sit-in actions (.32). The stronger coefficients
for this subsample suggest that individuals may be attempting to employ focused
information gathering strategies for television. In addition, for those who rely
on television, there is a negative relationship between number of classes
attended and support for the Earth First! dis-information campaign.
Tables 6 and 7 display the regression coefficients of the two models
for those who rely on newspaper for environmental information. These tables show
no statistically significant relationships to the situational tolerance items.
Generally, our analysis has found evidence to support the positive
relationship between specialized information usage and tolerance. However, the
relative inconsistent contributions of the model among dependent variables
suggested that the dimensions of situational tolerance may be important.
Dimensions of situational tolerance.
We analyzed the contributions of the two models for each of the three
dimensions of situational tolerance: Ethical and legal, Unethical and legal, and
Ethical and illegal.
Table 8 organizes the regression coefficients by each dimension. With
some exception, the contrasting positive and negative directions of the
coefficients tend to be distinguished by group. However, there was support for
media predictors of the three dimensions of tolerance. Focused media usage
positively predicted the ethical and illegal dimension of situational tolerance.
However, the information processing strategies tended to be negatively related
to Earth First! actions only. The consistency of these patterns for those who
are television reliant accounts for most of the relationship. No significant
relationships emerged among those who are reliant on newspaper for environmental
information.
So far, our results support the hypothesis that specialized
information about the environment encourages greater tolerance for environmental
protest. The fact that the media indicators out weigh the performance of the
educational specific variable (classes), suggests support for the complementary
roles of educational and media in the socialization of tolerance. To establish
this link to education and to provide a better explanation for our findings, we
turn to a post-hoc analysis by educational major.
Explaining the findings.
We divided the sample into two groups: Students with
environmentally-related majors and non-environmentally related majors. We coded
respondents' answers to an open-ended item which asked them to explain their
reasoning for answering as they did to the tolerance items. We coded responses
along six mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories: (1) use of legal
principles (mentions First Amendment rights, etc.), (2) mentions consequences of
the action (e.g., potential for violence, harm to others), (3) mentions group
characteristics (i.e., clear concern for the group's goals, history, and
associations), (4) application of moral principles (e.g., do not harm to others,
do not be unfair, do not violate another's freedom), (5) use of emotions (e.g.,
hatred of group mentioned), and (6) other.
Table 9 shows the bivariate statistics for these data by major.
Environmental majors appear to be more concerned with characteristics of the
group and the ethical/morality dimension of the group's actions than
non-environmental majors. In contrast, non-environmental majors tended to
respond in terms of legal principles to the hypothetical situations. This
finding suggests that as individuals become more specialized, they tend to
consider factors other than the legal principle of protest. Said another way, it
seems as if the greater the investment of knowledge in a given area, the more
likely it is that individuals will give responses based on their knowledge of
group characteristics or the ethics of the protest actions.
Discussion
This study offers two major contributions to the tolerance
literature. First, our innovative approach has focused on situational tolerance.
By conceptualizing tolerance as having legal and ethical dimensions, we answer
criticism that this literature has emphasized consensus at the expense of
understanding how conflict influences tolerance (Steele, 1993; see also Gans,
1973). That is, we recognize that a particular protest action may be legal, but
arguably unethical. Second, our study has also clarified the role of specialized
and generalized information seeking on these tolerance dimensions.
Our key findings are threefold. First, we have established that
tolerance varies across the legal and ethical dimensions. Indeed, respondents
seemed most uncomfortable with the unethical dimensions of political protest,
perhaps implicitly recognizing that all laws are not necessarily good laws.
Second, our results show that specialized information seeking augments
tolerance, especially for the difficult situations testing ethics and legality
of actions. That is, the items measuring individuals' motivations for seeking
environmental information (focused media usage) contributed positively toward
tolerance. Contrary to expectations, the generalized model neither predicted
tolerance D in either a positive or negative direction D nor explained much
variance. Third, in contrast to previous research showing the strong role of
knowledge in predicting tolerance, this variable did not predict tolerance in
the expected fashion. Finding this difference from the traditional literature
suggests that our approach to explaining education's role in tolerance was
appropriate. That number of classes, a solid indicator of obtaining specific
information through education, predicted
knowledge but did not predict tolerance suggests that it is how and
why respondents seek information that is a major contributing factor. Future
research should confirm this because we used a unique definition of
environmentally-specific knowledge.
In this study, respondents reacted more strongly to group actions
than they reacted to who the group was. This finding addresses the roles of
threat and affect. Threat, as economic impact in this study, explained our
findings to the extent that we asked respondents to imagine themselves in a
small town whose economy centers around the timber industry. This form of
economic impact was more important in responses to the Earth First! actions,
than the less immediate harm posed by the threat to livestock in the Sierra Club
scenarios. Again, it appears that the unethical dimension was seen by
respondents as more threatening than the illegal action, suggesting that
fairness plays a role in tolerance decisions. Affect, as respondents feelings
toward group members, tended to play a stronger role in the ethical situations
(as reactions to ethical-legal and ethical-illegal items) than in others, and
may have explained the somewhat mixed role played by the two media models in
these situations.
Our findings have implications for social protests. Certain forms of
environmental protests, perhaps those which may be unethical, may boomerang and
encourage respondents not to support the action. An unintended boomerang effect
may be especially likely given tendency toward negative media coverage of such
protests.
Finally, our findings suggest further research. The variability in
agreement among the environmental situations suggests that the media's framing
of protests matter for tolerance. Our scenarios were fictitious only to the
point of modified versions of real protest strategies. Future research should
explore the short-term impact of actual media frames, including the legal and
ethical dimensions, on subjects' tolerance.
References
Andsager, Julie L. (1994). Priming thought about expressive
rights: The effects of general and specific messages. Paper
presented at
AEJMC annual conference, Communication Theory & Methodology
section,
Atlanta, GA.
Arcury, Thomas (1990). Environmental Attitude and Environmental
Knowledge. Human Organization, 49, 4, 300-304.
Atwater, Tony, Salwen, Michael, & Anderson, Ronald B. (1985).
Media Agenda-Setting with Environmental Issues. Journalism
Quarterly, 62,
393-397.
Bobo, Lawrence & Licari, Frederick C. (1989) Education and
political tolerance: Testing the effects of cognitive
sophistication and
target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 285-308.
Chanley, Virginia (1994). Commitment to political tolerance:
Situational and activity-based differences. Political Behavior,
16, 3,
343-363.
Corbet, Julia (1995). Media, bureaucracy and the success of
social protest: Media coverage of environmental movement groups.
Paper
presented to the Mass Communication and Society Division, AEJMC,
Washington, DC, August.
Davis, Darren W. (1995). Exploring black political intolerance.
Political Behavior, 17, 1, 1-22.
Davis, James A. (1975) Communism, conformity, cohorts, and
categories: American tolerance in 1954 and 1972-73. American
Journal of
Sociology, 81, 491-513.
Gans, H. J. (1973). The positive functions of poverty. American
Journal of Sociology, 78, 2, 275-289.
Gibson, James L. (1992). Alternative measures of political
tolerance: Must tolerance be "least-liked"? American Journal of
Political
Science, 36, 2, 560-577.
Gitlin, Todd. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media and
the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of
California
Press.
Golebiouska, Ewa (1995). Individual value prioritys, education,
and political tolerance. Political Behavior, 17, 1, 23-48.
Gottlieb, Robert (1991). An Odd Assortment of Allies: American
Environmentalism in the 1990s. In Media and the Environment,
Craig L. LaMay
& Everette E. Dennis, (Eds.) Island Press: Washington, DC, pgs.
43-54.
Green, Donald P. & Waxman, Lisa M. (1987). Direct threat and
political tolerance: An experimental analysis of the tolerance of
blacks
toward racists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 149-165.
Iyengar, Shanto (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television
frames political issues. Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago
Press.
Kosicki, Gerald M. & McLeod, Jack M. (1990). Learning from
political news: Effects of media images and
information-processing
strategies. In S. Krauss (Ed.), Mass Communication and Political
Information Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kosicki, Gerald M., McLeod, Jack M., & Amor, David L. (1988).
Processing strategies for mass media information: Selection,
integrating
and making sense of political news. Paper presented to the
Elections,
Voting and Media division of the Midwest Political Science
Association,
April 1988.
Lawrence, D. G. (1976). Procedural norms and tolerance: A
reassessment. American Political Science Review, 70, 80-100.
Liebler, Carol M. & Bendix, Jacob.(forthcoming) Old Growth
Forests on Network News: News Sources and the Framing of
Environmental
Controversy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly.
McClosky, H. & Brill, A. (1983). Dimensions of tolerance: What
Americans believe about civil liberties. NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
McLeod, J. M., Guo, Z., Huang, K., Rzeszut, A. K., & Voakes, P.
S. (1992). Evaluating models of public support for First
Amendment rights.
Paper presented to AEJMC, Montreal, Canada.
McLeod, J. M., Steele, C. A., Chi, H. & Huang, S. (1991).
Political tolerance: Alternative models of support. Paper
presented to
AEJMC, Boston, MA.
Nunn, C. Z., Crockett, H. J., & Williams, J. A. (1978).
Tolerance for nonconformity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Prothro, J. W. & Grigg, C. M. (1960). Fundamental principles of
democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement. The Journal of
Politics,
22, 276-294.
Shoemaker, Pamela. (1984) Media treatment of deviant political
groups. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 66-75.
Sniderman, P. M., Tetlock, P. E., Glaser, J. M., Green, D. P., &
Hout, M. (1989). Principled tolerance and the American mass
public.
British Journal of Political Science, 19, 25-45.
Steele, Catherine A. (1993). Understanding political tolerance: A
status category and political sympathy model of public support
for free
expression. Unpublished dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Steger, Mary Ann E., Pierce, John C., Lovrich, Nicholas, P. &
Steel, Brent S. (1988). Information Source Reliance and Knowledge
Acquisition: Canadian/US Comparisons Regarding Acid Rain. The
Western
Political Quarterly, 41, 4, 747-764.
Stouffer, Samuel A. (1955) Communism, Conformity and Civil
Liberties. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Sullivan, John L., Marcus, George E., Piereson, James, & Feldman,
Stanley. (1978-79). The development of political tolerance: The
impact of
social class, personality, and cognition. International Journal
of
Political Education, 2, 115-139.
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James, & Marcus, George E. (1979).
An alternative conceptualization of political tolerance: Illusory
increases
1950s-1970s. American Political Science Review, 73, 781-94.
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James, & Marcus, George E. (1982).
Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago and London:
University
of Chicago Press.
Wilson, Kris M. (1993). Learning about Global Warming from the
Media. Conference paper presented to the Science Group, AEJMC,
Kansas City,
MO. August.
Wilson, W. C. (1975). Belief in freedom of speech and press.
Journal of Social Issues, 31, 69-76.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1a: Overall Sample
Earth First
Sierra Club
Support
Depends
No
Support
Depends
No
Legal
Ethical
61.2
27.6
10.8
67.2
19.4
11.2
Legal
Uneth-ical
6.9
15.9
76.7
11.6
20.3
65.9
Illegal
Ethical
19.0
27.6
52.6
16.4
23.7
57.3
Table 1b: Environmental Majors
Earth First
Sierra Club
Support
Depends
No
Support
Depends
No
Legal
Ethical
76.2
22.2
1.6
77.8
15.9
6.3
Legal
Uneth-ical
7.9
7.9
84.1
9.5
15.9
74.6
Illegal
Ethical
19.0
31.7
49.2
11.1
28.6
60.3
Table 1c: Non-Environmental Majors
Earth First
Sierra Club
Support
Depends
No
Support
Depends
No
Legal
Ethical
55.6
29.6
14.2
63.3
20.7
13.0
Legal
Uneth-ical
6.5
18.9
74.0
12.4
21.9
62.7
Illegal
Ethical
18.9
26.0
53.8
18.3
21.9
56.2
Table 2: Predicting Situational Support for
Environmental Protest
Earth First
Leaf-lets
Earth First
Dis-infor-mation
Earth
First
Chain
to
Trees
Sierra Club
Peti-tion
Sierra Club
800 # tele-phone
protest
Sierra Club
Sit-in
Ideol-ogy-Econo-mic
-.11
-.14
-.14
.14
-.02
-.05
Ideol-ogy-
Social
-.10
.03
-.17*
-.17*
-.11
-.21*
Affect
.09
.01
.19**
.25**
.10
.05
General NP Use
-.14*
.01
.02
.01
.03
.03
General TV Use
.01
.01
-.04
.10
.06
.04
Seeking Info
.08
-.20**
-.09
.13
.01
-.04
Adjust-ed R2
.06
.02
.12
.08
.00
.04
* p<.05
**p<.01
Table 3: Predicting Situational Support for Environmental Protest
Earth First
Leaf-lets
Earth First
Dis-infor-mation
Earth
First
Chain
to
Trees
Sierra Club
Peti-tion
Sierra Club
800 # tele-phone
protest
Sierra Club
Sit-in
Ideol-ogy-Econ-omic
-.03
-.11
-.06
.18*
-.02
-.05
Ideol-ogy-
Social
-.09
.00
-.18*
-.16
-.11
-.18*
Affect
.04
-.00
.15*
.20**
.11
.07
General NP Use
-.16*
.00
.02
-.01
-.00
-.00
General TV Use
-.01
-.01
-.05
.13
.06
.05
Seeking Info
.01
-.17*
-.17*
.08
-.02
-.09
Focused
Media Use
.22**
.03
.26**
.11
.15
.21**
Classes
-.01
-.07
-.00
.10
-.17*
-.09
Know-ledge
.02
-.07
.01
.13
.10
.03
Adjust-ed R2
.06
.01
.16
.12
.03
.07
* p<.05
**p<.01
Table 4: Predicting Situational Support for Environmental Protest
Television Reliant
Earth First
Leaf-lets
Earth First
Dis-inform-ation
Earth
First
Chain
to
Trees
Sierra Club
Peti-tion
Sierra Club
800 # tele-phone
protest
Sierra Club
Sit-in
Ideo-logy-Econ-omic
-.15
-.06
-.24
.13
-.10
-.12
Ideo-logy-
Social
-.01
.02
.02*
-.01
.03
-.06
Affect
.02
.00
.17**
.17
.01
-.05
General NP Use
-.08*
-.06
.14
-.00
.05
.01
General TV Use
-.01
-.01
-.00
.18
.14
.09
Seeking Info
.04
-.13
-.00
.04
.13
.20
Adjust-ed R2
-.02
-.03
.04
.00
-.00
.02
* p<.05
**p<.01
Table 5: Predicting Situational Support for Environmental Protest
Television Reliant
Earth First
Leaf-lets
Earth First
Dis-infor-mation
Earth
First
Chain
to
Trees
Sierra Club
Peti-tion
Sierra Club
800 # tele-phone
protest
Sierra Club
Sit-in
Ideo-logy-Econ-omic
.05
.02
-.04
.15
-.00
-.05
Ideo-logy-
Social
-.08
-.04
-.03
-.02
-.03
-.00
Affect
-.06
-.07
.14
.16
.02
-.03
General NP Use
-.07
-.07
.20
-.04
.04
-.00
General TV Use
-.12
-.08
-.06
.20
.09
.01
Seeking Info
-.01
-.11
.01
.03
.10
.13
Focused
Media Use
.43**
.20
.34**
.08
.23
.32**
Classes
.02
-.22*
-.18
.06
-.18
-.03
Know-ledge
-.03
-.02
.02
.12
.09
.03
Adjust-ed R2
.08
-.00
.14
.01
.01
.06
* p<.05
**p<.01
Table 6: Predicting Situational Support for Environmental Protest
Newspaper Reliant
Earth First
Leaf-lets
Earth First
Dis-inform-ation
Earth
First
Chain
to
Trees
Sierra Club
Peti-tion
Sierra Club
800 # tele-phone
protest
Sierra Club
Sit-in
Ideo-logy Econ-omic
.13
-.37
-.24
.13
-.22
-.12
Ideo-logy
Social
-.47*
.27
-.17
-.34
-.18
-.33
Affect
.25
-.07
.20
.21
.00
-.18
General NP Use
-.30
.06
-.01
-.05
-.07
.06
General TV Use
-.01
-.06
-.29
.01
.06
.02
Seeking Info
-.01
-.31
-.00
.00
.11
-.10
Adjust-ed R2
.35
.03
.16
-.01
.00
.04
* p<.05
**p<.01
Table 7: Predicting Situational Support for
Environmental Protest
Newspaper Reliant
Earth First
Leaf-lets
Earth First
Dis-infor-mation
Earth
First
Chain
to
Trees
Sierra Club
Peti-tion
Sierra Club
800 # tele-phone
protest
Sierra Club
Sit-in
Ideo-logy-Econom-ic
.04
-.41
-.23
.17
-.30
-.10
Ideo-logy-
Social
-.40
.21
-.12
-.49*
-.18
-.39
Affect
.30
.08
.35
.24
.00
-.02
General NP Use
-.30
.21
.01
-.25
.00
.05
General TV Use
-.04
-.13
-.28
.04
-.02
.06
Seeking Info
.00
-.24
-.27
.11
.06
-.15
Focused
Media Use
-.18
-.37
.19
.05
-.14
.05
Classes
.23
.26
.27
-.12
-.26
.13
Know-ledge
-.02
-.00
-.07
.23
.28
-.02
Adjust-ed R2
.29
.01
.19
.23
.06
-.03
* p<.05
**p<.01
Table 8: Beta Coefficients for General and Specialized Models
Predicting Dimensions of Situational Tolerance
Entire Sample
Ethical & Legal
Unethical, Legal
Ethical, Illegal
Earth First
Sierra
Club
Earth First
Sierra
Club
Earth First
Sierra
Club
NP Use
-.16
.01
.02
.03
.02
.03
TV Use
-.01
.10
-.01
.06
-.05
.04
IPS
.08
.13
-.17*
.01
-.17
-.04
Focused Media Use
.22**
.11
.03
.15
.26**
.21**
Classes
-.01
.10
-.07
-.17*
-.00
-.09
Know-ledge
.02
.13
-.07
.10
.01
.03
Television Reliant
NP Use
-.07
-.04
-.07
.04
.20
-.00
TV Use
-.12
.20
-.08
.09
-.06
.01
IPS
-.01
.03
-.11
.10
.01
.13
Focused Media Use
.43**
.08
.20
.23
.34
.32**
Classes
.02
.06
-.22*
-.18
-.18
-.03
Know-ledge
-.03
.12
-.02
.09
.02
.03
Newspaper Reliant
NP Use
-.30
-.25
.21
.00
.01
.05
TV Use
-.04
.04
-.13
-.02
-.28
.06
IPS
.00
.11
-.24
.06
-.27
-.15
Focused Media Use
-.18
.05
-.37
-.14
.19
.05
Classes
.23
-.12
.26
-.26
.27
.13
Know-ledge
-.02
.23
-.00
.28
-.07
-.02
* p<.05
**p<.01
Table 9: Open-ended responses to tolerance items
Summed across three responses
(Each cell has an implicit comparison to
mentioning anything else)
Prin-ciples
Conse-quences
Group
Moral
Emotions
Earth First!
23.7%
6.8%
15.9%
21.1%
1.3%
Sierra Club
24.1%
11.2%
8.6%
25.0%
1.3%
Environmental Majors Only
Prin-ciples
Conse-quences
Group
Moral
Emotions
Earth First!
20.6
7.9
31.7
25.4
0.0
Sierra Club
23.8
11.1
20.6
30.2
0.0
Non-environmental majors
Prin-ciples
Conse-quences
Group
Moral
Emotions
Earth First!
24.9
6.5
10.2
19.5
1.8
Sierra Club
24.3
11.2
4.1
23.1
1.8
Appendix A
Question wording
Situational Tolerance.
I. For each of these scenarios, imagine that you live in a small town
whose economy has been centered for generations around the timber industry.
Congress is considering limiting logging because the local old-growth forests
serve as a natural habitat for an endangered species.
Earth First, an environmental group, comes to town and hands out
leaflets protesting the destruction of old growth forests. Do you support the
Earth First group handing out leaflets?
Members of Earth First distribute a press release based on scientific
findings they know are flawed, but support their position. Do you support the
Earth First group engaging in this disinformation campaign?
Members of Earth First chain themselves to trees on private land to
prevent the trees from being cut down. Do you support the Earth First group
chaining themselves to trees?
II. Now suppose you live in a ranching town immediately adjacent to a
national park. Congress is considering legislation that would allow wolves to be
reintroduced into the park so that the natural ecosystem is recreated. Local
ranchers are concerned the wolves might attack their livestock.
Members of the Sierra Club come to town and circulate a petition in
support of the reintroduction of the wolves. Do you support the Sierra Club
circulating a petition?
Members of the Sierra Club repeatedly call the 800 number of a local
anti-wolf group; this ties up the line and costs the opposition group money for
each call made. Do you support the Sierra Club protesting by calling the 800
number?
During a meeting of the local anti-wolf group, members of the Sierra
Club stage a sit-in blocking the entrance to the rancher's property. Do you
support the Sierra Club staging this sit-in?
Focused Media Use.
Now, consider the amount of news coverage about the environment and
the way you make use of that information. On a scale of one to ten where one
means APPLIES NOT AT ALL and ten means APPLIES A GREAT DEAL, please tell me the
extent to which each statement applies to you.
a. I try to find information that assures me about the ongoing
safety of the environment.
b. I search information to find out more about those who violate
environmental laws.
c. I pay attention to news about the environment in order to
better understand environmental conflict.
d. I skim environmental information, because I've already heard
enough.
e. I pay attention to environmental news in order to have
something to talk about with others.
f. I search for environmental information to find out where
politicians stand on the issue.
Information-processing strategies.
Now we are interested in the ways you use the news media. By news
media, we mean newspapers, television news, news and opinion magazines, radio
news, and so forth. For each statement, please tell us whether you STRONGLY
AGREE, AGREE, FEEL NEUTRAL, DISAGREE, or STRONGLY DISAGREE.
a. I find it necessary to read between the lines of a story to
figure out what's really going on.
c. I talk with my friends about stories I've learned about in the
news to see what they think.
d. When I'm using the news media, I try to figure out what the
real story is that they're not telling me.
e. I try to find out additional information about a topic when I
feel the news stories are incomplete.
|
