Content-Type: text/html

This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
         If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, 
send email to
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D780447%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a> with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Effects of Ideologies and Values on Media Choices:
An Examination of Consumers of Conservative Media


by


Tien-Tsung Lee, PhD
Assistant Professor
Edward R. Murrow School of Communication
Washington State University
P.O. Box 642520
Pullman, WA 99164-2121
E-mail: <a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D780447%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>
Phone: 509-335-0113



Paper submitted to the CT&M Division
2005 AEJMC Annual Conference
for consideration for presentation
Effects of Ideologies and Values on Media Choices:
An Examination of Consumers of Conservative Media


Abstract

The increasing popularity of conservative media such as Fox News 
suggests that many consumers choose news sources that reflect their 
political views. Utilizing Uses & Gratifications and Hostile Media 
Perceptions as the theoretical framework, and employing alternative 
measures, this study is an in-depth analysis of audiences' ideologies 
and values. It examines whether and how ideologies and values 
influence audiences' media choices and political behavior. Findings 
suggest that consumers of conservative media tend to be right-wing 
authoritarian and religious fundamentalist, and subscribe to a 
"Strict Father" type of ideology.

Effects of Ideologies and Values on Media Choices:
An Examination of Consumers of Conservative Media

The increasing prominence of Fox News in the past few years has 
triggered some discussions in popular press (Greppi, 2003; Romano, 
2003). A few journalists have argued that many consumers choose this 
outlet of political information, despite its "fair and balanced" 
claim, because of its conservative and partisan nature. Speculations 
have also been made that conservative news outlets may further divide 
the citizens of this country (Cook, 2004; Samuelson, 2004; Shaw, 2004).
It may be somewhat shocking to journalists that a large number of 
consumers prefer politicized reporting instead of news services that 
strive to be objective and neutral. However, this is no surprise to 
media scholars. For years, Uses & Gratifications and Hostile Media 
researchers have demonstrated that audience characteristics influence 
their choices of media as well as their evaluations of media content 
(Kay & Johnson, 2002; Gunther, 1992; Gunther & Chia, 2001; 
Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Perloff, 1989; Rubin, 1981).
A new development regarding Fox News could trigger even more 
curiosity and discussions among observers. A survey reports that Fox 
News viewers are much more likely to have misperceptions regarding 
the War in Iraq than consumers of other news media (Program on 
International Policy Attitudes, 2003). Does this mean that the 
ideologies and partisanships of audiences may affect their political 
knowledge as well as their choices of media?
The present research is an exploratory study that investigates the 
effects of a large number of ideological and value variables on media 
choices. Specifically, a lengthy survey is used, which includes 
detailed measures of various dimensions of political ideologies and 
values. Predictors of conservative media consumption are identified 
and compared. Given the increasing influence of conservative media 
during an administration known for policies reflecting strong 
ideologies, knowledge generated by this study is both crucial and timely.

Literature Review
Motives and Effects of Media Choices

	Political communication literature has reported that the consumption 
of certain media could lead to political alienation (Capella & 
Jamieson, 1997; Crotty & Jacobson, 1980; Robinson, 1976; O'Keefe & 
Mendelsohn, 1978). However, conflicting results have been reported, 
such as the positive effects of newspaper reliance (Bowen, Stamm, & 
Clark, 2000; Wilkins, 2000). Furthermore, cultivation research has 
reported that heavy TV viewing contributes to the perception of a 
mean and fearful world (Gerbner, Gross, Jackson-Beech, Jeffries-Fox, 
and Signorielli, 1978; Gerbner, 1998). These studies suggest that 
exposure to different media may produce various effects.
Uses and Gratifications researchers are interested in why people use 
particular media, and have identified psychological and social 
motives such as a need for information, development of personal 
identity, social interaction, and entertainment (Blumler & Katz, 
1974; Rubin, 1983; Rubin & Perse, 1987). Vincent and Basil summarized 
this research approach by stating: "audiences differ in the 
gratifications they are seeking from the mass media, and these 
orientations may be related to certain social conditions and 
functions or personality dispositions and abilities" (1997, p. 380). 
A perfect example of this argument is a study by Slater (2003), which 
reports that sensation seeking, aggression, and alienation from peers 
predict the use of media with violent content by adolescents.
Insights from the Uses and Gratifications perspective suggest that 
audiences select media that fulfill certain needs. Furthermore, media 
choices could in turn reinforces certain characteristics or 
orientations. For instance, a study by Holbert, Kwak, and Shah (2003) 
demonstrates that audiences' environmental concerns predict what type 
of television programs they watch, and how such media consumption may 
further affect their environmental attitudes and behaviors.
	
Consumption of Conservative Media
	Communication scholars have studied certain media known for their 
conservative politics. For example, political talk radio has been 
found to be overwhelmingly negative and conservative, and does not 
improve audiences' political knowledge (Bennett, 2001; Hollander, 
1996; Moy, Pfau, & Kahlor, 1999). On the other hand, Lee (2004) has 
argued that conservative news sources are positively linked to 
audiences' political efficacy, and such sources are negatively 
associated with political cynicism.
	A recent survey by the Pew Research Center (2004) suggests that 
audiences' political ideologies and partisanships are a factor behind 
their media choices. Specifically, the Fox News channel has attracted 
a large number of conservatives and Republicans. However, it would be 
overly simplified to argue that Fox News appeals to Republicans and 
conservatives only because this outlet reflects these audiences' 
partisan views. According to the same Pew survey, Fox News also 
attracts a sizable number of Democrats and Independents. One possible 
explanation for this puzzle is the problems with self-reported 
liberal-conservative positions and party affiliations. Political 
scientists have discussed the complex nature of party affiliations 
and the limited predictive power of the one-dimensional 
liberal-to-conservative scale in U.S. politics (Flanigan & Zingale, 
1998; Maddox & Lilie, 1984).
	 A recent survey by PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 
2003) has raised more questions about the characteristics of Fox News 
viewers. Reportedly, Fox News audiences were more likely than 
consumers of other news sources to mistakenly believe in the 
following statements: "evidences of links between Iraq and al Qaeda 
have been found," "weapons of mass destruction have been found in 
Iraq," and "world public opinion favored the U.S. going to war in 
Iraq." Eighty percept of Fox News viewers had one or more of the 
three misperceptions, while only 23% of PBS/NPR consumers made the 
same mistake. The percentages of mistaken viewers of ABC (61%), CBS 
(71%), NBC (55%), and CNN (55%) were in between.
	The present author has not been able to locate any systematic 
studies on the content of Fox News, especially its coverage of the 
Iraq War. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn between possible 
relationships between news content and the misperceptions among Fox 
News viewers. However, insights from the communication literature 
reviewed earlier suggest that Fox News users may be willing to 
believe the arguments made by the Bush administration regarding the 
reasons for going to war, even though such arguments have not been 
supported by conclusive evidence. Therefore, why these viewers were 
so easily persuadable deserves some investigation. The present author 
argues that certain predispositions of Fox News viewers – namely 
their political ideologies and values – may have contributed to their 
misperceptions reported in the PIPA survey.  These potential causes 
or factors are reviewed in the next section.

Political Ideologies and Values
	Terms such as liberal and conservative are common in U.S. politics 
and poplar press. However, scholars have pointed out that a 
one-dimensional measure of political ideologies is inadequate. Some 
believe that a significant portion of the population does not have 
the ability to comprehend issues ideologically. Others argue that 
there should be two dimensions (social versus economic, or personal 
liberties versus free market) of ideologies rather than one. Also, 
both major parties encompass members with ideologies crossing 
traditional party lines (Flanigan & Zingale, 1998; Maddox & Lilie 
1984). For instance, members of labor unions – which are 
traditionally liberal and Democratic – may oppose same sex marriage 
due to their religious beliefs, while some Republicans may oppose 
bans on same-sex unions because they believe in a limited government. 
All these arguments and confusions suggest a need for alternative 
measures of citizens' ideologies. Lakoff (1996) has proposed two 
helpful models to understand liberals and conservatives.
Using a family structure metaphor, Lakoff (1996) argues that 
conservatives subscribe to a "Strict Father" mentality, while 
liberals have a "Nuturant Parent" worldview. The former promotes 
"self-discipline, responsibility, and self-reliance." It also 
advocates a "tough love" reward-and-punishment system based on 
obedience to "legitimate authorities" and tradition-based morality 
(p. 163). On the other hand, the "Nuturant Parent" model considers 
the following items moral and desirable: "empathetic behavior," 
"promoting fairness," and helping/protecting those who cannot 
help/protect themselves (p. 165).
These two "moral" systems or models are in fact ideologies. As 
defined by Hinich and Munger (1997), an ideology as:
an internally consistent set of propositions that make both proscriptive
and prescriptive demands on human behavior. All ideologies have
implications for (a) what is ethically good, and (therefore) what is bad; (b)
how society's resources should be distributed; and (c) where power 
appropriately resides (p. 11).

	The definitions above facilitate a better understanding of the 
differences between liberals and conservatives, and explain their 
issue positions. For instance, liberals (who tend to be Democrats) 
support welfare and affirmative action because they believe such 
polices help the disadvantaged and therefore promote fairness. On the 
other hand, conservatives (who tend to be Republicans) oppose such 
policies because they believe these approaches are against the 
principle of self-reliance (Lakoff, 1996). In addition, conservatives 
dislike social developments defying traditional gender roles and 
hierarchies, such as gay rights and the feminist movement (Lakoff, 1996).
	While the two models proposed by Lakoff provide a better 
understanding of the differences between ideologies commonly known as 
liberal and conservative, he did not offer any quantitative measures 
of ideologies. Fortunately, Altemeyer (1996) has generated a 
Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) scale that would operationalize 
Lakoff's parental models. Right-wing authoritarians, according to 
Altemeyer, are likely to: 1) submit to established authorities; 2) 
exhibit aggression or aggressiveness (toward various objects or 
individuals) that is perceived to be sanctioned by authorities; and 
3) adhere to certain conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by 
authorities. The RWA index is based on 30 items (measured on a –4 to 
+4 scale), including such statements as "The real keys to the 'good 
life' are obedience, discipline, and sticking to the straight and 
narrow," "Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash 
the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional 
beliefs," "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do 
what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness 
that are running us," and "There is no 'ONE right way' to live life; 
everybody has to create their own way" (Altemeyer, 1996, p. 13). 
These examples suggest that the RWA is an ideal measure of the 
"Strict Father" versus "Nuturant Parent" ideologies.
	It is common knowledge that, in U.S. politics, political 
conservatism has a strong religious overtone (Brown, 2002). For 
instance, before the 2000 election, George W. Bush visited Bob Jones 
University, a Christian institution that bans interracial dating 
among its students (Keen, 2000). Also, since taking office Bush has 
broken the wall between church and state, allowing religious 
charities to receive federal funding (Leonard, 2002). These examples 
suggest that, to understand U.S. politics, especially conservative 
politicians and policies, one should consider religion in addition to 
right-wing authoritarianism.
Altemeyer (1996) has also developed a Religious Fundamentalism Scale 
(RFS). The RFS consists of 20 items (also measured on a –4 to +4 
scale), including such statements as "God has given mankind a 
complete, unfailing guide to happiness and salvation, which must be 
totally followed," "God will punish most severely those who abandon 
his true religion," and "No single book of religious writing contains 
all the important truths about life."
	Altemeyer (1996) himself has reported a high correlation (r = .68) 
between the RWA and RFS, and a high level of reliability of the RFS 
(alpha = .92). According to Antoun (2001) and Armstrong (2001), 
religious fundamentalists believe that their holy scripts are 
inerrant, and therefore should be interpreted literally and obeyed 
without question. Those who disagree with such strict views should be 
defeated, punished, and/or converted. Furthermore, fundamentalists 
prefer authority and tradition, which give them a sense of comfort 
and security (Antoun, 2001; Armstrong, 2001). If God is perceived as 
a heavenly father to be feared and completely obeyed, this 
interpretation certainly coincides with the "Strict Father" ideology 
discussed earlier.
	President Bush and his supporters appear to be subscribers of the 
"Strict Father" ideology, and many of Bush's policies seem to reflect 
items on the RWA and RFS scales. For example, "moral values" in 
Bush's policies and campaign messages, such as the ban on same-sex 
marriage, reportedly pleased many conservative Christians and 
consequently contributed to his election victory in 2004 (Dao, 2004; 
Seelye, 2004).
To better understand U.S. politics and media, one should study values 
in addition to ideologies. While an ideology represents a general 
worldview, a value is a more specific construct. A value is basically 
a guiding principle or an enduring perspective that could affect 
one's attitudes toward specific issues and situations, and 
consequently behaviors. Some values can also be conceptualized as a 
personality trait (Kahle, 1983; Kahle & Chiagouris, 1997; Mitchell, 
1983; Rokeach, 1968, 1973).
Shorter lists of values exist in various academic disciplines such as 
marketing (e.g. Kahle, 1983; Kahle & Chiagouris, 1997). The most 
comprehensive list of values was developed by Rokeach (1968, 1973). 
He identified a total of 36 human values, which were divided into two 
groups: 1) "instrumental" (modes of conducts reflecting socially 
desirable behaviors); and 2) "terminal" (end states of existence 
reflecting behavioral outcomes). Example of instrumental values 
include "ambitious," "broadminded," "honest," and "helpful." Examples 
of terminal values include "a comfortable life," "an exciting life," 
"a world at peace," and "salvation." The present author theorizes 
that many of these values can be seen as components of the "Strict 
Father" versus "Nuturant Parent" ideologies. They are also likely 
elements or predictors of RWA and RFS constructs.

Hypotheses
	Based on the literature reviewed above, it can be theorized that 
consumers of conservative media tend to harbor views that are 
traditionally identified as conservative and Republican. However, 
alternative scales, namely RWA and RFS, should be better measures of 
such ideologies. In addition, citizens with high RWA and RFS scores 
are likely to support Bush due to their similar political views. 
Next, the "Strict Father" ideology should be reflected by certain 
human values. Therefore, the following hypotheses are generated:

H1: Audiences with higher Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) and
    	   Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RFS) scores are more likely to consume
    	   conservative media than those who are placed lower on these scales.

H2: RWA and RFS stands are better predictors of conservative media
    consumption than self-reported liberal-conservative labels and 
party affiliations.

H3: High RWA and RFS scores predict one's support for Bush.

H4: Human values reflecting the "Strict Father" ideology are positively
    associated with RWA and RFS.

Method
	A survey was conducted at a large public university on the west 
coast. A 12-page survey was offered for extra credit to students in 
several communication classes during the spring semester and summer 
session in 2004. A total of 119 students participated, with 62 women 
(52.5%), 56 men (47.5%), and one missing case. Ages ranged from 19 to 
25, with a mean of 21.57. This sample included more seniors (35.6%) 
and juniors (37.3%) than sophomores (23.7%) and freshmen (2.5%). The 
majority of participants (over 95%) were Caucasian.
	In addition to typical demographic questions such as age and sex, 
the questionnaire also contains a one-dimensional 
liberal-conservative scale (1 = very liberal to 7 = very 
conservative), and a scale of partisanship. This 1-to-9-point measure 
positions including a strong supporter/member of the Republican 
Party, an independent leaning toward either party, independent 
leaning toward neither party, and a strong support of the Democratic 
Party. Members other parties and apolitical respondents were excluded 
from analysis. Because this survey was conducted in 2002, one's 
support for Bush was measured by the following question: If the U.S. 
presidential election was held today and you were eligible to vote, 
whom would you most likely vote for? Choices included George W. Bush, 
John Kerry, none, and other. The four choices were re-coded in two 
different ways for analyses, including Bush versus non-Bush voters, 
and Bush versus Kerry (with the other two options coded as missing).
This survey also consists of a number of questions related to media 
and political ideologies adopted from existing studies (Altemeyer, 
1996; Lee, 2004; Moy & Pfau, 2000; National Election Studies, n.d.; 
Pinkleton and Austin, 2001; Pinkleton, Austin, & Fortman, 1998). 
Specifically, in addition to typical demographic questions, there are 
items on how important one considers each of the 19 information 
sources for learning about the government and politics. These sources 
include network television news, Fox News and/or the O'Reilly Factor, 
CNN or MSNBC, local TV news, PBS/NPR, news interview shows like Larry 
King, national newspapers, local newspapers, religious leaders like 
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, political talk radio, religious 
TV/cable/radio, news magazines such as Time and Newsweek, and the 
Internet. Cronbach's alpha of these source variables is .85. In 
addition, there are 9 items measuring the frequency of exposure (0 to 
7 days in a typical week) to various types of media. Their alpha is .66.
A factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the 19 
source variables. Next, a scale reliability analysis was performed on 
several groups of variables that appeared to load on the same factor. 
Finally, three additive indices of media importance were created: 1) 
conservative media (alpha = .76; the sum of 5 items including Fox 
News, religious leaders, ministers/pastors of one's own church, talk 
radio, and religious TV/cable/radio); 2) TV news (alpha = .71; the 
sum of 5 items including network TV news, CNN/MSNBC, local TV news, 
news interview shows, and morning TV news shows such as Good Morning 
America); and 3) in-depth media (alpha = .66; the sum of 3 items 
including PBS/NPR, national newspapers, and news magazines). The 
importance of the above sources is the operationalization of media 
consumption in the present study.
The human value items were adapted from the studies by Rokeach (1968, 
1973). These variables were divided into two groups (following 
Rokeach's original structure) and were measured on a scale from 1 
(extremely important) to 9 (less important). Because students may be 
tempted to mark 1 on most or all items, they were also asked to rank 
the importance of each variable (1 being most important and 2 being 
second most important). Each item's importance and ranking were 
multiplied. Therefore, a lower number would mean a higher level of 
importance. A factor analysis and then a scale reliability procedure 
similar to the ones reported above were performed on all 40 values 
items. There are 40 instead of 36 items because values such as 
"traditional," "self-controlled," and "thrift" are added to encompass 
the "Strict Father" ideology.
Six additive value indices were created as a result: 1) 
peace/beauty/equality (alpha = .74); 2) ability (alpha = .70; 
including a sense of accomplishment, wisdom/a mature understanding of 
life, ambitious, capable, and courageous); 3) intellectual (alpha = 
.77; including broadminded, imaginative, independent, innovative, 
intellectual, and logical); 4) security (alpha = .75; including a 
comfortable life, family security, national security, personal 
safety, and pleasure); 5) harmony (alpha = .82; including inner 
harmony, mature love, true friendship, cheerful, forgiving, helpful, 
and loving); and 6) moral/order/tradition (alpha = .76; including 
salvation, self-respect, social recognition, clean, honest, obedient, 
polite, responsible, self-controlled, thrift, and traditional).
The RWA and RFS items were copied from Altemeyer's book (1996), and 
each scale produced a very high alpha (RWA = .89; RFS = .92). 
Altemeyer re-coded his scale from –4 to +4 into 1 to 9 without a 
clear explanation for this change. Therefore, the present study used 
the sums of the original scales to form the two indices. Logistic and 
hierarchical multiple regressions, bivariate correlations, and 
t-tests were chosen for statistical analyses in this study. Existing 
literature suggests the need for controlling sex and media bias 
perception. Researchers have reported differences between women and 
men in political behavior (Wilkins, 1995, 2000). Also, 
self-identified conservatives and Republicans tend to believe the 
media have a liberal bias (Lee, 2005). Therefore, these variables are 
controlled in the multiple regression analysis.

Findings
Authoritarians, Fundamentalists, and Conservative Media
	The first hypothesis states that higher RWA and RFS scores predict 
the consumption of conservative media. The second hypothesis poses 
that RWA and RFS are better predictors of such consumption than 
one-dimensional liberal-conservative labels and party affiliations. 
Both H1 and H2 are supported. As shown in Table 1, the 
liberal-conservative scale and partisanship yield insignificant ß's 
(p > .05), while both RWA (ß = .38, p < .01) and RFS  (ß = .24, p < 
.05) were significant. Therefore, RWA and RFS are better predictors 
of conservative media importance than liberal-conservative and party 
affiliations.
	For comparison purposes, regression models examining predictors of 
other media (TV news and in-depth) are reported in Table 1 as well. 
Figures in these models show that liberal-conservative labels and 
partisanship are not predictors of the reliance or importance of 
other media. These data also suggest that some right-wing 
authoritarians may consider in-depth media (such as news magazines 
and national newspapers) important sources for their learning about 
the government and politics.

Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, and Support for the President
	The third hypothesis theorizes that consumers with higher Right-Wing 
Authoritarian (RWA) and Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RFS) scores 
are more likely to support Bush. A t-test (t = 3.85, p < .001) shows 
that Bush supporters have higher RWA scores (mean = -12.68, s.d. = 
29.61) than Kerry supporters (mean =
-35.31, s.d. = 27.36). Another t-test (t = 3.47, p < .01) indicates 
that Bush supporters score higher on the RFS scale (mean = -6.55, 
s.d. = 32.37) than Kerry supporters (mean = -27.15, s.d. = 25.79).
	When respondents are divided into Bush supporters versus 
non-supports, two additional t-tests yield similar results. One 
t-test (t = 3.42, p < .01) reveals that Bush supporters have higher 
RWA scores (same mean and s.d. as above) than non-supporters (mean = 
-31.8, s.d. = 27.74). Another t-test (t = 3.13p < .01) reports that 
Bush supporters also score higher on the RFS scale (same mean and 
s.d. as above) than non-supporters (mean = -23.83, s.d. = 25.68). 
Therefore, H3 is supported by t-tests.
	However, when logistic regression is used and other variables are 
taken into consideration, the same hypothesis is not supported. The 
dependent variable is voting for Bush (=1) or not (= 0), and seven 
independent variables are included in this regression analysis: sex 
(male), liberal-conservative, party affiliation 
(Republican–Democrat), conservative media, TV news, in-depth media, 
RWA, and RFS. Effects of these variables on one's voting for Bush are 
compared. The results summarized in Table 2 suggest that only 
liberal-conservative labels and partisanship are significant 
predictors. Self-identified conservatives and Republicans are more 
likely to vote for Bush. Right-wing authoritarianism, religious 
fundamentalism, or consumption of various media are not associated 
with support for Bush when all variables are taken into consideration 
at the same time. Therefore, this logistic regression model does not 
support H3. As a result, H3 is only partially supported.

Human Values, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Religious Fundamentalism
	Finally, two multiple-regressions are run, using RWA and RFS as 
dependent variables, and the six human value items reported in the 
method session as independent variables. Sex (male), the 
liberal-conservative scale, and partisanship are controlled. Figures 
in Table 3 indicate that liberal-conservative labels (ß = .28, p < 
.05) and moral/order/tradition (ß = -.48, p < .001) are the only 
significant predictors of Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Those who 
identify themselves as conservative, and who consider 
moral/order/tradition values more important, tend to be right-wing 
authoritarian.
	Table 3 also shows that RFS's significant predictors include 
intellectual (ß = .44, p < .001) and moral/order/tradition (ß = -.42, 
p < .01). The more religious fundamentalist consumers are, the less 
they consider being intellectual important, and the more they 
consider moral/order/tradition values important. These findings 
support H4. Specifically, the statistically significant variable of 
moral/order/tradition supports the argument that the RWA and RFS 
scales operationalize the "Strict Father" ideology. Also, this set of 
findings suggests that religious fundamentalists are less likely to 
be critical thinkers due to the fact that they do not consider being 
intellectual important. In addition, because RWA and RFS have a 
significant correction (r = .53, p < .001), intellectualism may be 
indirectly linked to RWA.

<<Insert Tables 1-3 About Here>>

Conclusion and Discussion
	The findings of this study have established connections between 
Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, a "Strict 
Father" ideology, consumption of conservative media, and support for 
President George W. Bush. These results also suggest that RWA and RFS 
are better measures of ideologies and policy preferences than the 
one-dimensional liberal-conservative scale and party affiliations. 
Therefore, the present study has made a contribution in terms of both 
knowledge and methodology.
	Can the findings of this study help explain why Fox News viewers are 
more likely to have misperceptions regarding the War in Iraq than 
consumers of other media? Altemeyer (1996) has reported that 
Right-Wing Authoritarians tend to obey established authorities 
without questioning. Because consumers of conservative media tend to 
be Right-Wing Authoritarian, as suggested by present findings, they 
are unlikely to challenge what established authorities tell them. In 
other words, they are expected to support Bush's decisions and claims 
regarding the War in Iraq.
In addition, their religious fundamentalist mentality may have 
contributed to a sense of superiority over Muslims. This argument can 
be illustrated by a quote of a U.S. general, William G. Boykin. 
Describing his battle with a Muslim warlord, he said "I knew that my 
God was bigger than his God. I knew that my God was a real God and 
his was an idol" (Zakaria, 2003). The same news story argues that 
this religious view is in line with many in the Bush administration. 
If Bush supporters believe that going to war in Iraq has God's 
blessing, it is understandable that these individuals would 
mistakenly believe this action is supported by public opinion all 
over the world.
	Hostile Media studies have demonstrated that regardless of what is 
reported in the news, audiences tend to see what they want to believe 
due to their ego-involvement (Gunther, 1992; Gunther & Chia, 2001; 
Lee, 2005; Perloff, 1989). Therefore, even if Fox News's coverage of 
the Iraq War were truly "fair and balanced," their viewers would 
still support the arguments supplied by the Bush administration for 
going to war. On the other hand, as the Uses and Gratifications 
perspective would predict, it is likely that Fox News attracts Bush 
supporters because its coverage does reflect the ideologies of the 
Bush administration.
	This exploratory study is likely the first to investigate – 
especially at such depth and with alternative measures – the 
connections between audiences' political ideologies, consumptions of 
conservative media, and their support for political policies. Even 
though there are many possible arguments against using student 
samples, there are few supportive ones. First, college students are 
more likely to have the ability to handle abstract constructs such as 
ideologies and human values. Second, they are more likely to have the 
patience to carefully answer a large number of questions that require 
thinking. Third, instead of making generalizations to the general 
population, this type of study is useful for finding relationships 
between variables.
This research can serve as a foundation for future studies using 
non-student samples. Even though it would be difficult to persuade 
non-student participants to fill out a lengthy survey such as this, 
it is possible with sufficient incentives. With non-student samples, 
researchers can investigate effects of additional variables such as 
age, race, education and income. Additionally, findings can be more 
generalizable to the U.S. population.
In conclusion, the present study has applied two useful communication 
theories or perspectives in an investigation of a current phenomenon, 
namely the increasing popularity – and therefore influence – of 
conservative media. A better understanding of the characteristics of 
their audiences has been generated.  In addition, insights from this 
study also help explain why Fox News viewers were found to have more 
misperceptions on issues related to the War in Iraq than audiences of 
other media. Fox News and other conservative media will likely remain 
a part of the media landscape. Consequently, political communication 
researchers are encouraged to continue studying their audiences.
Table 1
Multiple Regression Analyses of Media Consumption

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Dependent 		Conservative		TV News		In-Depth Media
Variables		Media 	
_____________________________________________________________________________________

  			ß			ß			ß
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Independent  	
Variables
	
Sex (male)		.01			-.24*			-.27*

Liberal-			-.10			-.10			-.18
Conservative

Party affiliations		-.14			.19			.13
(Republican-Democrat)

You can depend on 	.16			.09			-.01
most news reporters
to get a story right

Most news media 	.08			.15			.06
are trustworthy

RAW			.38**			.28			.29*

RFS			.24*			.03			-.10

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

R-square		.40			.18			.13

N			95			95			95
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01






Table 2
Logistic Regression Analyses of Voting for Bush

_____________________________________________________________________________________

			B	S.E.	Wald	Exp(B)

Independent  	
Variables
	
Sex (male)		.23	.84	.08	1.26 		

Liberal-			 1.58*	.62	6.38	4.88	
Conservative

Party affiliations		 -1.06**	.32	11.05	.35		
(Republican-Democrat)

Conservative Media	.09	.09	1.15	1.10

TV News		.17	.11	2.35	1.19

In-depth Media		-.03	.14	.04	.97

RWA			-.01	.02	.34	.99	

RFS			-.00	.01	.07	1.00

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p <.001; N = 97; Chi-sq. (df = 8) = 73.94***;
  -2 Log likelihood = 49.07; Cox & Snell R-sq. = .53; Nagelkerke R-sq. = .74

Table 3
Multiple Regression Analyses of Right-Wing Authoritarianism
and Religious Fundamentalism

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Dependent 		Right-Wing 		Religious	
Variables	 	Authoritarianism 		Fundamentalism
_____________________________________________________________________________________

  			ß			ß			
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Independent  	
Variables
	
Sex (male)		.12 			-.10	

Liberal/			.28* 	 		.15
Conservative

Party affiliations		-.15 			-.05
(Dem.-Republican)

Peace/beauty/equality 	.04			.06

Ability 			.08			-.08

Intellectual 		.15			.44***

Security 			-.02			.05

Harmony 		.01			-.19

Moral/order/tradition 	-.48***			-.42**


_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

R-square		.44			.32		

N			96			96			
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

	


References
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard University
    Press.
Antoun, R. T. (2001). Understanding fundamentalism: Christian, 
Islamic, and Jewish
    movements. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Armstrong, K. (2001). The battle for God: A history of 
fundamentalism. New York:
    Ballantine Books.
Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (Eds.) (1974). The uses of mass 
communications: Current
    perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bowen, L., Stamm, K., & Clark, F. (2000). Television reliance and 
political malaise: A
    contingency analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 
44(1), 1-15.
Brown, R. M. (2002). For a "Christian American": A history of the 
religious right.
    Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Capella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The 
press and the public
    good. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cook, J. (2004, September 19). Glimpse at the future looks neither 
fair or balanced.
    Chicago Tribune, 1.
Crotty, W. J., & Jacobson, G. C. (1980). American parties in decline. 
Boston: Little,
    Brown and Company.
Dao, J. (2004, November 4). Same-sex marriage issue key to some 
G.O.P. races. New
    York Times, P4.
Flanigan, W. H. & Zingale, N. H. (1998). Political behavior of the 
American electorate
    (9th ed). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & 
Signorielli, N. (1978).
    Television violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication, 
28(3), 176-207.
Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass 
Communication and Society
    1(3/4), 175-194.
Greppi, M. (2003, July 7). Fox News still tops the heap, TelevisionWeek, 9.
Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Public Opinion 
Quarterly, 56, 147-
    167.
Gunther, A. C., & Chia, S. C. (2001). Predicting pluralistic 
ignorance: The hostile
    media perception and its consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication
    Quarterly, 78, 688-701.
Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1997). Ideology and the theory of 
political choice.
    Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Holbert, R. L., Kwak, N., & Shah, D. (2003). Environmental concern, 
patterns of
    television viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating 
models of media
    consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic 
Media, 47(2), 177-196.
Hollander, B. (1996). Talk radio: Predictors of use and effects on 
attitudes toward
    government. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 102-113.
Kahle, L. R. (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to 
life in America. New
    York: Praeger.
Kahle, L. R., & Chiagouris, L. (Eds.) (1997), Values, lifestyles, and 
psychographics.
    Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kay, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and 
gratifications of
    the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & 
Electronic Media, 46, 54-
    71.
Keen, J. (2000, February 25). Don't panic, Bush tells campaign team 
plans strategy to
    regain lead. USA Today, A10.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that 
liberals don't. Chicago:
    University of Chicago Press.
Lee, T. (2004, August). Media effects on political alienation 
revisited: A multiple-media
    approach. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the 
Association for Education in
    Journalism and Mass Communication. Toronto, Canada.
Lee, T. (2005), The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors
    influencing media bias perception. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
    Media, 49(1), 43-64.
Leonard, M. (2002, July 21). Religious groups prodded on grants. 
Boston Globe, p. A1.
Maddox, W. S., & Lilie, S. A. (1984). Beyond liberal and 
conservative: Reassessing the
    political spectrum. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
National Election Studies (n.d.). Retrieved on February 1, 2002 from
    http://www.umich.edu/~nes.
Moy, P., & and Michael Pfau, M. (2000). With malice toward all? The 
media and public
    confidence in democratic institutions. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine American lifestyles: Who we are and where we're
    going. New York: MacMillan.
O'Keefe, G., & Mendelsohn, H. (1978). Non-voting and the role of the 
media. In C.
    Winick (Ed.), Mass media and deviance (pp. 263-268). Beverly 
Hills, CA: Sage.
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. 
Journal of
    Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175-196.
Perloff, R. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of 
televised news
    coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2004, June 8). News 
audiences
    increasingly politicized. Retrieved on March 17, 2005 from http://people-
    press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=833
Pinkleton, B. E., & and Erica Weintraub Austin, E. W. (2001). 
Individual motivations,
    perceived media importance, and political disaffection. Political 
Communication,
   18(3): 321-334.
Pinkleton, B. E., Erica Weintraub Austin, E. W., & Fortman, 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.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of 
organization and
    change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Romano, A. (2003, March 3). February heated up for cable news, Broadcasting
    & Cable, 20
Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The 
interactions of viewing
    patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.
Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and television news
    gratifications. Communication Research, 14, 58-84.
Samuelson, R. J. (2004, June 28). Picking sides for the news. Newsweek, 37.
Seelye, K. (2004, November 4). Moral values cited as a defining issue 
of the election.
    New York Times, P4.
Shaw, D. (2004, October 31). Media matters; "Have it your way" is 
good for burgers, bad
    for society. Los Angeles Times, E16.
Slater, M. D. (2003). Alienation, aggression, and sensation seeking 
as predictors of
    adolescent use of violent film, computer, and website content. Journal of
    Communication, 53(1), 105-121.
Vincent, R. C., & Basil, M. D. (1997). College students' news 
gratifications, media use,
    and current events knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & 
Electronic Media, 41(3),
    380-392.
Wilkins, K. G. (1995). Gender, news media exposure and political 
cynicism: Public
    opinion of Hong Kong's future transition. International Journal 
of Public Opinion
    Research, 7(3), 253-269.
Wilkins, K. G. (2000). The role of media in public disengagement from 
political life.
    Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 569-580.
Zakaria, F. (2003, October 21). Rumsfeld's crusader. Washington Post, A25.