How political consultants can leverage partisan media combativeness in the U.S.

Abstract

The growth of partisan media presents new challenges for political consultants. Informed by social identity theory and truth-default theory, this paper examines how U.S. voters react to politicians in combative news interviews. Experiment 1 (N = 320) establishes that an ingroup politician gains more trust among ingroup voters when interviewed by cross-partisan media accusing the politician of deception than when interviewed more congenially by co-partisan media. Experiment 2 (N = 131) finds that perceived media hostility increases Democrats’ and Republicans’ trust in a politician regardless of whether the interviewer accuses the politician of deception or is congenial. Experiment 3 (N = 126) replicates the findings when a Democrat is accused of deception on Fox News. The study tested a moderated mediation model, finding that Republican and Democratic voters do not react differently in the process. The discussion highlights the practical and theoretical implications of hostile media perceptions and ingroup–outgroup partisan bias in a polarized media environment with conflicting exposure to live fact-checking and deception detection.