If a medium has a monopoly in covering political news and daily distorts the news in favor of the ruling autocrat, how large will the persuasion effect be? Through which channels will such persuasion operate most? Working with a representative sample of the Russian population, I use a causal mediation analysis to explore whether (1) frequency of exposure and/or (2) reliance on biased reporting mediate the link between how people voted for incumbent elites and how they evaluate these elites in the present. Perceiving explicitly biased information as credible transmits a large and robust effect from voting to evaluation, while frequent exposure to this information produces an insignificant mediating effect. Another important finding is that the effect of perceived news credibility overrides the effect of previous electoral support: Accepting state propaganda as credible information converts people into regime supporters even if they did not support these elites at previous election.
ArceneauxKJohnsonMMurphyC (2012) Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics74(1): 174–186.
2.
ArkesHRHackettCBoehmL (1989) The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making2(2): 81–94.
3.
BaconFT (1979) Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory5(3): 241–252.
4.
BaumMAGussinP (2008) In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science3(1): 1–31.
5.
BeckerLBDoolittleJC (1975) How repetition affects evaluations of and information seeking about candidates. Journalism Quarterly52(4): 611–617.
6.
BriñolPDeMarreeKG (eds) (2012) Social Metacognition. New York: Psychology Press.
7.
ColtonTJMcFaulM (2003) Popular Choice and Managed Democracy: The Russian Elections of 1999 and 2000. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8.
DanielRMDe StavolaBLCousensSN (2011) gformula: Estimating causal effects in the presence of time-varying confounding or mediation using the g-computation formula. The Stata Journal11(4): 479–517.
9.
De StavolaBLDanielRMPloubidisGB, et al. (2015) Mediation analysis with intermediate confounding: Structural equation modeling viewed through the causal inference lens. American Journal of Epidemiology181(1): 64–80.
10.
DellaVignaSKaplanE (2007) The fox news effect: Media bias and voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics122(3): 1187–1234.
11.
EnikolopovRPetrovaMZhuravskayaE (2011) Media and political persuasion: Evidence from Russia. American Economic Review101(7): 3253–3285.
12.
GerberASKarlanDBerganD (2009) Does the media matter? A field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics1(2): 35–52.
13.
HaleHMcFaulMColtonT (2004) Putin and the ‘delegative democracy’ trap: Evidence from Russia’s 2003-04 elections. Post-Soviet Affairs20(4): 285–319.
14.
HawkinsSAHochSJ (1992) Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research19(2): 212–225.
15.
HicksRTingleyD (2011) Causal mediation analysis. The Stata Journal11(4): 605–619.
16.
HovlandCIWeissW (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly15(4): 635.
17.
HutchingsSCRulyovaN (2009) Television and Culture in Putin’s Russia: Remote Control. London: Routledge.
18.
ImaiKKeeleLTingleyD (2010) A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods15(4): 309–334.
19.
ImaiKKeeleLTingleyDYamamotoT (2011) Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review105(4): 765-789.
20.
KochTZerbackT (2013) Helpful or harmful? How frequent repetition affects perceived statement credibility. Journal of Communication63(6): 993–1010.
21.
KruglanskiAW (1989) The psychology of being ‘right’: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin106(3): 395–409.
22.
KuklinskiJHQuirkPJJeritJ, et al. (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics62(3): 790–816.
23.
KundaZ (1987) Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53(4): 636–647.
24.
LangA (2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication50(1): 46–70.
25.
MagniG (2017) It’s the emotions, stupid! Anger about the economic crisis, low political efficacy, and support for populist parties. Electoral Studies50: 91–102.
26.
NorrisP (2006) Did the media matter? Agenda-setting, persuasion and mobilization effects in the British General Election Campaign. British Politics1(2): 195–221.
27.
OatesS (2007) The neo-Soviet model of the media. Europe-Asia Studies59(8): 1279–1297.
28.
PearlJ (2001) Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Seattle, WA, 2–5 August, pp. 411–420. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
29.
PearlJ (2014) Interpretation and identification of causal mediation. Psychological Methods19(4): 459–481.
30.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) Message elaboration versus peripheral cues. In: HovlandCIJanisILKellyHH (eds) Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer, pp. 141–172.
31.
PettyREWegenerDT (1998) Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin24(3): 227–240.
32.
PopkinSL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
RobinsJ (1986) A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period – application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical Modeling7(9–12): 1393–1512.
34.
RobinsJMGreenlandS (1992) Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology3(2): 143–155.
35.
RosenfeldB (2018) The popularity costs of economic crisis under electoral authoritarianism: Evidence from Russia. American Journal of Political Science62(2): 382–397.
36.
SirotkinaEZavadskayaM (2019) When the party’s over: Political blame attribution under an electoral authoritarian regime. Post-Soviet Affairs36: 1–24.
37.
StockmannDGallagherME (2011) Remote control: How the media sustain authoritarian rule in China. Comparative Political Studies44(4): 436–467.
38.
VanderWeeleTJ (2015) Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
WatanabeK (2017) Measuring news bias: Russia’s official news agency ITAR-TASS’ coverage of the Ukraine crisis. European Journal of Communication32(3): 224–241.
40.
WhiteSOatesSMcAllisterI (2005) Media effects and Russian elections, 1999–2000. British Journal of Political Science35(2): 191–208.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
