- 1 . n..- .-,.v.‘—wr¢-rr>nv'“ firfiv‘ INFORMATION SEEKING ON WATER- GATE AND PRESIDENT NIXON'S RESIGNATION AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NIXON AND THE MASS MEDIA DISSERTATION FOR THE DEGREE 0F PH.D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DIANA STOVER TILLINGHAST 1976 I III; lllljllljlll In I III I III III III I This is to certify that the thesis entitled INFORMATION SEEKING ON WATERGATE AND PRESIDENT NIXON 'S RESIGNATION AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NIXON AND THE MASS MEDIA presented by Diana Stover Ti llinghast has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Communication Arts and Sciences-~Mass Media Major professor John D. Abel Date August 11, 1976 0-7 639 WMGm2 18151111999 “v... Wares 1’}; 100 A‘“C __' ran-I I / 7. ABSTRACT INFORMATION SEEKING ON WATERGATE AND PRESIDENT NIXON'S RESIGNATION AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NIXON AND THE MASS MEDIA By Diana Stover Tillinghast The two-wave panel study was conducted during the final month of the administration of President Richard M4 Nixon in the summer of 1974 to examine the information seeking behavior of the public and their attitudes toward Nixon and the messenger that was bringing the bad news about his involvement in the Watergate coverup. The first wave of interviews, which was conducted July 10-23, was completed prior to the historic televised House Judiciary Committee impeachment debates. Nixon resigned August 9 and the final wave of interviews was conducted August 10-27. All interviews were personal interviews. Survey participants were a systematic sample of Lansing, Mich., area residents. The response rate was 226 or 75 percent of the sample of 300 individuals at Time 1 and 216 or 72 percent of the sample at Time 2. Eighty-one percent or 182 of the individuals interviewed at Time 1 were also interviewed at Time 2. The sampling error estimate for Time 1 and Time 2 ranges from plus or minus 5.4 to plus or minus 6.8 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence, depending primarily upon how respondents' attitudes are split on the variables. The hypotheses were tested by a priori planned comparisons within the framework of a one-way analysis of variance that accommo- dated unequal n's with the exception of one hypothesis tested by a t-teSt o Diana Stover Tillinghast The study provides a portrait of Lansing area residents actively seeking information on Watergate and Nixon's resignation. Overall, during the President's last month in office, attitudes toward Nixon became more negative and attitudes toward the news media became more positive. The major findings are as follows: 1. A small core of individuals--mostly Republicans-~were more likely than other individuals to believe that the mass media were out to get Nixon. These individuals also showed a greater preference at Time 1 for information supportive of Nixon than did other individuals. However, this preference broke down at Time 2 with the events leading up to Nixon's resignation. These results indicate that individuals opposed to Nixon's impeachment maintained their psychological balance by blaming the messenger and selectively exposing themselves to infor- mation supportive of Nixon. 2. There is a direct relationship between information seeking and attitudes toward Nixon. As exposure to information detrimental to Nixon increased, the attitudes toward Nixon became more negative and as attentiveness to the content of news stories detrimental to Nixon increased, the attitudes toward Nixon became more negative. 3. As the political uncertainty increased with the events leading up to Nixon's resignation, individuals increased their amount of information seeking and their attentiveness to the content of news stories. However, this did not hold on a personal basis. Individuals uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached or concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment did not engage in more inforuation seeking behavior than did other individuals. INFORMATION SEEKING ON WATERGATE AND PRESIDENT NIXON'S RESIGNATION AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NIXON AND THE MASS MEDIA By I ,- [\l‘. 4 ‘3: Diana Stover Tillinghast A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Communication Arts and Sciences--Mass Media 1976 <:> Copyright 1976 by Diana Stover Tillinghast ii DEDICATION To WAT and MMS iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to acknowledge and thank the members of my committee for the time, help and support they have given me throughout the doctoral program at Michigan State University. I especially want to thank Prof. John D. Abel, dissertation chairman, for his encourage- ment of Watergate as a dissertation topic and for his help in getting the first survey into the field; Prof. George A. Rough 3rd for the opportunity to gain innovative precision journalism teaching experience under his guidance; Prof. Gordon E. Miracle for his part in introducing me to mass media economics; and Prof. Thomas A. Muth, guidance committee chairman, for the opportunity to gain policy research experience that involved the merger of legal and quantitative methodologies. I also want to thank R. Neale Coppe and James Morrison, professors at the University of Nebraska who helped shape my interest in mass media as an undergraduate, and Prof. William E. Hall of Ohio State University who encouraged me to teach and to get a Ph.D. On a personal level, I want to thank my husband and colleague, William A. Tillinghast, and my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Marvin.M. Stover, for their encouragement and support of my academic interests. In addition, I want to thank Audrey Agnell, who spent many long hours typing the dissertation, for the painstaking job of making the dissertation, especially the tables, typographically attractive. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES O I O O O C O 0 O 0 Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . Background of Study . . . . Purpose of Study . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses: Theoretical and Research Limitations of the Scope of the Problem . . II. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . Overview of Uses and Gratifications Research Merger of Uses and Gratifications and Limited Effects Model . . . . . . . . Agenda Setting . . . . . . . . De Facto Selective Exposure . . . . . To Kill the Messenger . . . . . . \\Watergate: The Printed Word . . . . III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction . . . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . Sample and Sample Error . . . . . Sample and Population . . . . . . The Questionnaires . . . . . . . Design of Questionnaires . . . . . Pretest of Questionnaires . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . Development of Scales . . . . Factor Analysis, Scale Construction and Reliability and Validity . . Statement of Testable Hypotheses and Operationalization of Variables . Data Analysis . . . . . . iv vii ll 17 21 23 26 31E. 37 37 38 38 41 46 46 48 52 54 54 61 75 Chapter IV. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . Information Seeking. Descriptive Statistics Multiple Media and Daily Media . . Attention, Avoidance and the Avid Newspaper Reader. Other Sources of Watergate- -Related Information. Change Over Time . . . . . . ttitudes Toward Nixon . . . . Attitudes Toward the News Media . . Selective Exposure . . . . . Demographic Breakdowns . . . . . Hypotheses Tests . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . Summary . . . . Statement of Problem and Study Design . Findings: Information Seeking . . Multiple Media and Daily Media . . Attention, Avoidance and the Avid Newspaper Other Sources of Watergate-Related Information Findings: Change Over Time . . Findings: Demographic Breakdowns . Findings: Hypotheses Tests . . Limitations of Research . . . . . Conclusions and Implications for Research APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Watergate-Impeachment Survey I . . . . B. Watergate- Impeachment Survey II . . . . C. Letter of Introduction . . . . . D. Results of Watergate- Impeachment Survey I . . E. Results of Watergate- Impeachment Survey II . F. Table A: Frequency Distributions for Attitudes Nixon and the News Media Scales . Seeker Toward Table B: Frequency Distributions for Information Seeking and Selective Exposure Scales LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . vi 79 79 8O 85 90 91 91;: 95 97 100 105 128 128 128 130 130 133 134 135 136 137 143 144 149 162 176 177 190 204 206 Table 1. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Percentages for Sex, Race and Age of Sample and Population Age 18 and Older . . . . . . . . Percentages for Education of Sample and Population Age 18 and Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discriminatory Power of Items in Four Scales on Pretest 1 . Discriminatory Power of Items in Four Scales on Pretest 2 . Three Major Dependent Variable Scales Constructed from Factor Loadings on Time 1 Variables . . . . . . Cronbach's Alpha: Reliability of the Four Major Dependent Variable Scales . . . . . . . . . . Amount of Information Seeking on the Watergate-Impeachment Issue by Each Medium at Time 1 and Time 2 for (1) the Information Seekers and for (2) All Respondents . . . Number of Watergate-Impeachment Stories Read, Listened to or Watched during a Week in July, 1974, and Number of Resignation-Related Stories Read, Listened to or Watched during the week of Aug. 5-12 . . . . . . . . . Paired t-test on Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 1 and T me 2 O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O Turnover Table Showing the Shift in Composite Attitudes Toward Nixon at Time 1 and Time 2 . . . . . . . . Paired t-test on the Blame the News Media Scale at Time 1 and T ime 2 O O O O O O O C O O C O O C Turnover Table that Shows the Shift in Attitudes on the Blame the News Media Scale at Time 1 and Time 2 . . Paired t-test on the Exposure to Information Supportive of Nixon Scale at Time 1 and Time 2 . . . . . . . . Turnover Table that Shows the Shift in Selective Exposure to Information Supportive of Nixon at Time 1 and Time 2 . . vii Page 43 45 50 52 56 58 87 88 92 94 96 97 98 99 Table 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Means of Democrats, Republicans and Independents on (1) Composite Attitude Toward Nixon Scale and (2) Blame the News Media Scale at Time 1 and Time 2 Means at Time 1 of Individuals in Five Age Groups on (1) Composite Attitude Toward Nixon Scale and (2) Amount of Information Seeking Scale . . . . . . Hypothesis 1: Paired t-test on (1) the Amount of Infor- mation Seeking at Time 1 and Time 2 and (2) the Atten- tiveness to the Content of News Stories at Time 1 and Time 2 . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2: 'Mean Scores on (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Certainty on Whether Nixon Should Be Impeached and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories by Degree of Certainty on Whether Nixon Should Be Impeached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H2: (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Certainty on Whether Nixon Should Be Impeached and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories by Degree of Certainty on Whether Nixon Should Be Impeached . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3: Mean Scores on (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Personal Concern and (2) Attentive- ness to Content of News Stories by Degree of Personal Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H3: (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Personal Concern and (2) Attentiveness to Con- tent of News Stories by Degree of Personal Concern . Hypothesis 4: ‘Mean Scores on Exposure to Information Supportive of Nixon by Attitude Toward Impeachment. Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H4: Exposure to Information Supportive of Nixon by Attitude Toward Impeachment . . . . Hypothesis 5 and 5A: Mean Scores on Blame the News Media by Attitude Toward Nixon's Impeachment . . . . Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H5 and HSA‘ Blame the News Media by Attitude Toward Nixon's Impeachment . . . . viii Page 102 103 106 108 109 111 112 114 116 118 119 Table Page 26. Hypothesis 6: Mean Scores on Exposure to Information Detrimental to Nixon of All Respondents Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 27. Hypothesis 6A: Mean Scores on Attentiveness to Content of News Stories of A11 Respondents Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 28. Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H5 and H6A‘ (1) Exposure by Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 29. Hypothesis 7: Mean Scores on Exposure to Information Detrimental to Nixon of Respondents Who were Less than Strongly Opposed to Nixon's Impeachment Who Were Inter- viewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 30. Hypothesis 7A: 'Mean Scores on Attentiveness to Content of News Stories of Respondents Who Were Less than Strongly Opposed to Nixon's Impeachment and Who Were Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 31. Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H7 and H7A: (1) Exposure of Respondents Less than Strongly Opposed to Nixon's Impeachment Who Were Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories of Respondents Less Than Strongly Opposed to Nixon's Impeachment Who Were Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 A. Frequency Distributions for Attitude Toward Nixon and the News Media Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 B. Frequency Distributions for Information Seeking and Selective Exposure Scales . . . . . . . . . . . 205 ix CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Background of Study The United States was in the throes of an unprecedented Constitutional and political crisis in the summer of 1974. The Watergate revelations and the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry stimulated debates in the mass media on the advisability of the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon by the full House and the subsequent conviction of Nixon by the U.S. Senate on charges contained in a bill of impeachment. The crisis had its origins two years earlier in an event des- cribed by the White House as a "second-rate burglary." On June 17, 1972, five men carrying electronic bugging equipment were arrested in the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office- hotel complex in Washington, D.C. At first, this local story inter- ested only Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two young reporters at the Washington Post. Before the 1972 election when Nixon was reelected with more than 60 percent of the popular vote, the Washington Post revealed that political espionage was being conducted and political slush funds were being operated by the Committee to Re-elect the President. On February 7, 1973, the U.S. Senate created the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities--known as the Senate Watergate Committee--to investigate the extent to which illegal, im- proper or unethical activities occurred in the 1972 Presidential election campaign. In 1973, the press carried extensive, but fragmentized accounts of the Watergate revelations and events, including the trial of the Watergate seven and Judge John J. Sirica's search for the truth, the Senate Watergate Committee's televised summer hearings, the legal battle for the White House tapes and the events of October 20 which became known as the Saturday night massacre. On that day, Nixon ordered Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to cease further judicial efforts to obtain White House tapes. When Cox rejected this sugges- tion, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson to fire Cox but he resigned rather than carry out the order. Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus also refused to fire Cox. Nixon's order was ultimately carried out by U.S. Solicitor General Robert H. Bork whom Nixon had abruptly appointed acting Attorney General. Public and Congressional response to Nixon's actions was immediate and decisively negative. Four days later the House Judiciary Com- mittee announced plans to proceed with an impeachment investigation. On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives gave the Judiciary Committee broad powers to conduct an impeachment inquiry and by March the legal battle for the White House tapes had shifted from grand juries to the Committee. On March 18, the Committee fell heir to a grand jury report--which was made public by the Los Angeles Times three months 1ater--that named Nixon as an unindicted co- conspirator in the Watergate coverup. A month later on April 11, the Committee voted to subpoena the tapes of more than 40 Presidential conversations. On April 30, Nixon responded by releasing a 1,308-page document containing the edited transcripts of the White House tapes, but refused to turn over the tapes and documents the Committee had requested. Although the taped Watergate conversations had been edited, the transcripts provided a revealing glimpse into the Nixon White House-~a not too flattering glimpse of Nixon at work with his top ad- visers. The transcripts showed a vacillating Nixon whose conversa- tions were profane. The Judiciary Committee began hearing evidence on Nixon's possible involvement in the Watergate break-in and coverup in closed sessions on May 9. On July 1, Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski said in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court that the grand jury had substantial evidence of Nixon's involvement in the Watergate coverup. On July 9, the Committee published its own tran- scripts of eight tapes of Nixon's Watergate conversations which differed from the edited transcripts made public by the White House. It was against this background of revelations and events in the last act of the Watergate-Impeachment drama that this study was put into the field on July 10, 1974. The study spanned the final days of the Nixon White House, with the first data collection period ending July 23, 1974. Two events the next day marked the beginning of the end of the Nixon administration. On July 24, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon's President's Privilege argument, holding that Nixon did not have the ultimate authority to withhold subpoenaed tapes and that he must turn them over to the special prosecutor. The President agreed to comply with the decision. In an evening session, the House Judiciary Committee began its historic televised debates on the articles to impeach Nixon. With much of the nation as its witness, the Committee on July 27 ap- proved an article of impeachment charging Nixon with obstructing justice in the Watergate coverup. Two days later it approved a second article of impeachment charging Nixon with misuse of his presidential powers in violation of his oath of office and on July 30 it approved a third article of impeachment charging Nixon with defying committee subpoenas. On August 5, Nixon made public self-incriminating edited transcripts of private conversations about Watergate and admitted that he withheld evidence of his role in the Watergate coverup from his lawyers and supporters on the House Judiciary Committee for political as well as national security reasons. The following day, House Minority Leader John R. Rhodes of Arizona announced that he would vote for the first article of impeachment and all 10 members of the House Judiciary Committee who had voted against impeachment reversed themselves and announced that they too would vote for the first article. On August 8, Nixon made a television speech to the nation in which he announced that he would resign, effective at noon August 9. At noon the next day, Nixon--who left office without explaining his part in or admitting his guilt in the Watergate coverup-~was airborne over the Midwest on his way to San Clemente in his last trip aboard Air Force One. At 12:03 p.m., Vice President Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as the 38th President of the United States. The following day inter- viewers went into the field to collect post-resignation data. Purpose of Study The Watergate-Impeachment issue is probably the most important public issue to be debated so far during the 19703. The Washington Egg; maintained a lonely vigil on Watergate throughout most of 1972. But, in 1973 and 1974, the Watergate events and revelations received an unprecedented amount of media coverage. The coverage during the final days of the Nixon administration provided an excellent oppor- tunity for a study done over time on information seeking during a national political crisis and on the effects, if any, this pervasive coverage had on public opinion toward President Nixon and the news media. The study results should be useful to journalists and social scientists who are interested in explanations of the news seeking be- havior of the public and the effects of detrimental information on a President who won the 1972 election by a landslide as well as the effects on the press who took Nixon on en masse. The results should also provide theoretical insights into information seeking and atti- tude change and add to these developing bodies of knowledge. The merging of an effects approach and a uses and gratifications approach in one study should also provide useful information for communication researchers. The literature indicates that traditionally researchers have dealt with the effects approach to mass communication in which the researcher asks, "What does mass communication do to people?" In recent years, some researchers have taken an information seeking approach to mass communication. The question then becomes, "What do people do with mass communications?" McCombs (1972) suggested that both approaches can be utilized to consider what factors bring indi- viduals to the mass media and what effects the mass media have on the individuals. This is the approach that was taken in this study. The Problem The questions that needed to be answered were these: What are the information seeking behaviors of the public regarding the Watergate- Impeachment issue? Has the mass media coverage of the revelations on the Watergate-Impeachment issue resulted in changes in attitudes to- ward Nixon? How are the individuals who oppose impeachment handling the psychological imbalance created by the Watergate-Impeachment issue: (1) are they blaming the messenger that carries the bad news? and (2) are they selectively exposing themselves to information supportive of Nixon? Definitions relevant to the problem and the research hypotheses are as follows: 1. Information seeking is the process by which an indi- vidual acquires message content from a specific medium. 2. The Watergate-Impeachment issue is the matter which includes all news stemming from the Watergate break-in and the alleged corruption and wrongdoing in the Nixon administration. 3. Mass media coverage is limited to live broadcasts or news stories on Watergate-related events and revelations in news- papers, television, radio and news magazines. 4. Attitudes are mental and neural states of readiness to respond, organized through experience exerting a directive or dynamic influence on behavior (Allport, 1935). 5. Psychological imbalance is a state in which an indi- vidual's cognitive dissonance or incongruity motivates him to restore equilibrium among his cognitions. 6. Selective exposure occurs when individuals seek out messages that are compatible with their beliefs, attitudes, values and opinions. 7. Information detrimental to Nixon is that information reported during the last month of the Nixon administration. The chronology of events, which was discussed earlier in this chapter, indicates that the Watergate events and revelations reported by the press during this period provided information that was extremely negative toward Nixon. Hypotheses: Theoretical and Research The theoretical hypotheses concerning information seeking are based on a research framework developed by Charles Atkin (1973). They are: 1. Individuals have a need for guidance information. The information search increases systematically with the degree of un- certainty. 2. Individuals maintain surveillance over potential changes in the political environment out of a pragmatic necessity to become knowledgeable because of possible personal consequences. 3. Individuals seek out supportive messages, but show little exclusion of discrepant messages. Self-doubt produces a need for reinforcement information. The first two hypotheses are aimed at determining information seeking behaviors. The third hypothesis, which also concerns infor- mation seeking behavior, is aimed at examining the reduction of cognitive dissonance. A fourth theoretical hypothesis concerns cogni- tive dissonance and the principle of congruity. It is based primarily on research by Festinger (1957) and Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955). The hypothesis: 4. Attitude change and source derogation are alternative modes of handling cognitive dissonance with source derogation less available for use when the source is presented as highly credible. Hypothesis 4 also provides useful theory for dealing with atti- tude change. It is important to determine whether the following theoretical generalizations of Klapper (1960) hold in situations like Watergate where the mass media coverage is so pervasive and predom- inantly negative: 5. Persuasive mass communication is more likely to rein- force the existing opinions of its audience than it is to change such opinions. 6. Minor changes in attitudes frequently follow exposure to persuasive communication. 7. When mass communication functions in the service of change, one of two conditions is likely to exist: (a) the mediating forces will be found to be inoperative and the effects of the media will be found to be direct, or (b) the mediating factors will be found to be themselves, atypically, favoring change. The research hypotheses are as follows: Hypothesis 1: If the news media report that Nixon's impeach- ment is imminent, individuals will increase their information seeking behavior. Hypothesis 2: If individuals are uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached, they will engage in more infor- mation seeking behavior than will individuals who have made up their minds on the issue. Hypothesis 3: If individuals are concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment, they will engage in more inforuation seeking behavior than will individuals who are not as concerned. Hypothesis 4: If individuals believe Nixon should not be impeached, they will be exposed to a greater amount of information supportive of that position than will individuals who believe he should be impeached. Hypothesis 5: If individuals are opposed to Nixon's impeach- ment, they are more likely to blame the news media than will other individuals. Hypothesis 6: The more individuals are exposed to or pay attention to information detrimental to Nixon on the Watergate-Impeachment issue, the more their attitudes toward Nixon will move in that same direction. 10 Hypothesis 7: The more individuals who are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached are exposed to or pay attention to infor- mation detrimental to Nixon on the Watergate-Impeachment issue, the more their attitudes toward Nixon will move in that same direction. Limitations of the Scope of the Problem 1. Information seeking was tied to the three types of adap- tion requirements that create extrinsic uncertainty in an individual-- the need for environment surveillance, guidance and reinforcement information. 2. Attitude change was of interest as it related to whether the composite attitudes toward Nixon changed in intensity or direction during the study period. 3. The handling of psychological imbalance by individuals was primarily of interest as it concerned information seeking and attitude change, but it was used to empirically test the notion that people react to bad news by blaming the messenger--the news media. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Overview of Uses and Gratifications Research Newspapers, television and radio news programs and news maga- zines would not be thriving institutions if the public did not have a compulsive need to know the things that are happening in the world in which they live. Nordenstreng (1969) stressed that the basic drive for contact keeps all communication in operation. This notion has been expanded by Rosengren (1974) and by Katz, Gurevitch and Haas (1973) who devised an elaborate scheme to explain how individuals use the media to connect themselves to society--to self, family, friends and nation. A more basic interpretation of the media was first offered by Lasswell (1948) who argued that the media served the needs of surveillance of the environment, correlation of the parts of society in responding to the environment and the transmission of the social heritage from one generation to the next. In the intervening years, Wright (1960) suggested that mass media content could be dysfunctional as well as functional and, in the following decade, McQuail, Blumler and Brown (1972) and Atkin (1973) provided frameworks for uses and grati- fications research. Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch (1974) assessed the state of 30 years of uses and gratifications research--the study of information 11 12 seeking behavior-~in The Uses of Mass Communications, a comprehensive review of this research tradition. They noted that during the past few years there has been a revival of direct empirical investigations of audience uses and gratifications, not only in the United States, but also in Britain, Sweden, Finland, Japan and Israel. One researcher (Edelstein, 1973) conducted an interesting comparative study in Belgrade and Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, and Seattle, Wash., to examine how various media are used by individuals to help them understand and to make up their minds about various local and world problems that they believe to be important. Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch (1973, 1974) described the uses and gratifications approach as one concerned with the social and psycho- logical origins of the needs which generate expectations of the mass media or other sources which lead to differential patterns of media exposure or the participation in alternative activities, resulting in need-gratification and other consequences. The authors singled out five elements of a uses and gratifications model developed by Swedish researchers Lundberg and Hulten (1968) as being especially important for researchers. They are: 1. The audience is conceived of as active, meaning that an important part of mass media use is assumed to be goal directed. This assumption is in contrast to Bogart's (1965) thesis that most mass media experiences represent pastime rather than purposeful activity. 2. In the mass communication process much initiative in linking need gratification and media choice lies with the audience member. l3 3. The media compete with other sources of need gratifica- tion. 4. In regard to methodology, many of the goals of mass media use can be derived from data supplied by individual audience members themselves. Audience members are considered to be sufficiently self-aware to be able to report their interests and motives in using the mass media, or at least to recognize them when confronted with them in an intelligible and familiar verbal formulation. 5. Value judgments about the cultural significance of mass communication should be suspended while audience orientations are explored on their own terms. The authors stressed that the uses and gratifications model confronts the image of the beer drinking, casual viewer of television with the concept of a more active audience although it is recognized that both the active and passive images are true. Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch (1973, 1974) concluded that because this approach to mass media study takes account of what people look for from the media, it breaks away from a slavish dependence of content on audience propen- sities by focusing on the great variety of needs and interests of individuals. The assumption of an active audience selecting media and content, which was implied in the westley-MacLean (1957) model for communication research, has been particularly relevant to the study of news seeking behavior. As far back as 1958, Danielson and Stempel contended that news seeking is a secondary drive in humans which impels them to find out what is going on in the world. A year later, l4 Westley and Barrow (1959) followed up the Danielson and Stempel study with an investigation of news seeking behavior in educational tele- vision. They concluded that news seeking could be thought of as a persistent tendency to place a positive value on information that is potentially relevant to the individual's orientation to his surround- ings. Research on the uses of the mass media during times of crisis have provided graphic evidence that audiences actively seek out information in the media. The Greenberg and Parker (1965) collection of studies on media use following the shooting of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 indicates that--although half of those interviewed first found out about the shooting from other individuals--Americans turned to the news media to satisfy their insatiable need to know exactly what happened in Dallas. In a more recent study, Peled and Katz (1974) found that during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, an active Israelian audience used the media for information and interpretation of the events. The news of the Kennedy shooting traveled fast. Schramm (1965) reported that 68 percent of a national sample knew about the shooting within half an hour and 99.8 percent heard the news within five-and- a-half hours. Greenberg (1964a), who surveyed San Jose, Calif., residents after the Kennedy shooting, found that almost nine out of 10 individuals had heard about the shooting prior to the announcement that the President had died. The Kennedy assassination was atypical in that half of the people found out about the shooting from interpersonal channels. Greenberg (1964b) found that the mass media were the most 15 pervasive first source of information-~especially television for bulletin or major news events--across 17 other news events studied. This finding was replicated by Sohn (1975) who did a study of the dif- fusion of the news of Nixon's resignation. Sohn found that television was the most pervasive medium in delivering news of both the fact that the President would address the nation and the fact that he had resigned. The view that there is an active audience is also taken by McGuire (1974) who argued that most media exposure is motivated as opposed to being an almost random tuning in on or reading of what happens to be available. McGuire, who generated a system of 16 basic human motivations for seeking out mass media content, stressed that although external, haphazard circumstances play a large part in determining an individual's media exposure--especia11y the initial exposure--this should not rule out the possibility that personal needs and gratifications are significant determinants of the typical con- tinued exposure. He argued that because people show clear and loyal preferences among equally accessible mediums, such characteristic persistence cannot be viewed as mere continuation of a chance habit. He noted that behavioral theory's "law of effect" holds that without reinforcement, the individual would not continue his exposure to mass media content. Atkin (1973) defined the need for information as "a function of extrinsic uncertainty produced by a perceived discrepancy between an individual's current level of certainty about important environmental objects and a criterion state he seeks to achieve (p. 206)." He 16 identified four basic types of adaptation requirements that create extrinsic uncertainty in an individual. Three of the adaptation re- quirements--the need for guidance, surveillance and reinforcement that were briefly outlined in Chapter I--were used as a theoretical frame- work for the information seeking hypotheses in this study. The adaptation requirements are as follows: 1. Affective adaptation which generates a need for guidance information. The research evidence indicates that the information search increases systematically with the degree of uncertainty. 2. Cognitive uncertainty which helps define specific states of awareness uncertainty or understanding uncertainty that produce the need for surveillance information. The research evidence suggests that individuals may feel a pragmatic necessity to become knowledge- able about an event or an issue. 3. Defensive adaptation which results from self-doubt and produces a need for reinforcement information. The overall selec- tivity evidence shows a definite preference for supportive messages but little exclusion of discrepant materials. The major countering factor to self-selection is sheer accessibility. Individuals tend to see and hear communications to the extent that they are readily avail- able. 4. Behavioral adaptation which serves a how-to-do it need for performance information. The research evidence indicates that individuals need information to fulfill an assigned activity, a voluntary activity or to obtain routine information. l7 Atkin also noted that other determinants of information seeking are topical interest, entertainment value of a message and rewards expected from the message. Merger of Uses and Gratifications and Limited Effects Models Blumler and Katz (1974) noted that uses and gratifications research is coming of age. In the 19405 and 19505 researchers were concerned with describing audience subgroups and researchers in the 19603 were concerned with operationalizing the social and psychologi- cal variables related to differentiated patterns of media consumption. However, in the past few years researchers, in addition to linking the motivations and gratifications associated with media exposure to more systematic formulations of social and psychological needs, are beginning to feel that an understanding of the patterns of gratifica- tions is a prerequisite to an understanding of media effeCts (Blumler and McQuail, 1969; McCombs, 1968, 1972; Katz, Gurevitch and Haas, 1973; Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch, 1974; Kline, Miller and Morrison, 1974; McLeod and Becker, 1974; McLeod, Becker and Byrnes, 1974; Rosengren, 1974; O'Keefe, 1975; and Becker, 1976). ‘McCombs (1968) illustrated a merger of the uses and gratifica- tions approach and the effects approaches in a study of the use of mass communications by college students in California. ‘McCombs found that personal cognitive needs prompted students to seek out varying amounts of information and that as exposure to mass communication in- creased, the effect was increased political interest. McCombs (1972) suggested that both approaches can be used to consider what motivations 18 and needs bring individuals to the media, what happens to them while they are there and what contribution mass communication makes to the ultimate outcome. Blumler and McQuail (1969) in their research on the 1964 national election in Britain, studied the gratifications that indi- viduals received from mass media exposure, how they used the informa- tion and the extent to which the persuasiveness of a campaign message depended upon the individual's motivation to follow the campaign on television. They found that the changes in the ways the voters per- ceived the images of the candidates and the issues-~the effects of the television coverage--were related to differences in media exposure and motivation. Becker (1976) took advantage of the extensive coverage of Watergate to replicate some of the Blumler and McQuail (1969) findings concerning gratifications and media effects during an election. Al- though Becker found some support for the inclusion of gratifications variables in effects analysis, his gratifications and avoidances variables made a significant contribution to the prediction of attention to the Senate Watergate Committee hearings for older voters, but not for younger voters. McLeod and Becker (1974) noted that the uses and gratifications model was a reaction to the simplicity of the hypodermic stimulus- response model of communication effects--that exposure to persuasive communications is synonymous with effects. However, the authors argued that the limited effects model of the media in which individuals are thought to be so active and so selective that they could get 19 anything out of any message is also a deceptive guide for communication research. They contended that the reaction against the hypodermic model should not lead away from a concern with effects, but should in- stead lead to the exploration of the systematic relationships between gratifications sought and effects. Because the limited effects model has provided the theoretical framework for effects research since 1960 when Joseph T. Klapper's The Effects of Mass Communication was published, it is important to review the model. Although it has been taken as gospel, Klapper presented the following model as tentative generalizations that he hoped "further thought and research will modify and perhaps annihi- late (p. 9):" l. Persuasive mass communication is more likely to rein- force existing Opinions than to change such opinions and minor attitude change is a more likely effect than conversion and a less likely effect than reinforcement. 2. Mass communication functions through a nexus of medi- ating factors which themselves normally favor reinforcement. Klapper identified the mediating factors as: predispositions and the derived processes of selective exposure,se1ective perception and selective retention; the group and the norms of the groups to which the audience member belongs; interpersonal discussion of communication content; opinion leadership; and the role of the media as socially reinforcing agents in society. 20 3. When mass media do function in the service of change, the mediating factors are found to be inoperative or themselves impel- ling toward change. One instance in which the media may be effective in creating opinions and the mediating factors are inoperative is when an individual does not have a pre-existing opinion. Also, the rein- forcement effect doesn't necessarily hold in situations where the communicator is the only source of information. 4. There are certain residual situations in which mass communications seem to produce direct effects or to serve certain psychophysical functions. 5. The efficacy of mass communication is affected by the audience's image of the source of communication, the audience's regard for the mass medium that carries the message, the differential effec- tiveness of the mass mediums as channels for persuasive communications and the content characteristics of the message. As noted in Chapter 1, the research hypotheses were aimed at determining whether the limited effects model holds with respect to Watergate and Nixon's resignation. McCombs (1972) noted that in the effects tradition of research, the expectations and emphasis of researchers was on detecting shifts in attitudes and, when surveys did not find the affective change, they offered reinforcement and the law of minimal consequences as conclu- sions. ‘McCombs argued that the emphasis should be on the cognitive component of attitudes. He stressed that the usual sequence of atti- tude change is cognitive change-affective change and that the cognitive 21 media inputs do not show up immediately in affective attitude change. He argued that because cognitive sets are characterized by consistency and stability, "extreme cognitive change among large numbers of pe0ple is unlikely to turn up in surveys of political behavior where a variety of factors buttress each other (p. 179)." He noted that the cognitive sets of individuals allow them to absorb a number of inconsistencies without undergoing fundamental change, acting like a brake on affective attitude change. ‘McCombs contended that the research strategy for understanding the effects of mass communication should be to observe long-term cognitive change along with the media content that contri- butes to this change in orientation toward parties, political leaders and issues. Agenda Setting Agenda setting by the mass media is one framework for looking at the role of the media in attitude change. The idea of agenda setting by the press has been around for a long time although it wasn't referred to by that name. Back in 1922, Walter Lippmann wrote about the media's role in forming the pictures in our heads. In 1952, Lazarsfeld and Merton suggested that the mass media confer status on public issues, persons, organizations and social movements simply by covering them. Then, in 1963, Bernard Cohen in his book, The Press and Foreign Policy, explained that the press "may not be successful much of the time in telling its readers what to think but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about (p. 13)." McCombs (1972) provided this interpretation for Cohen's statement: "In other words, mass communication may have little effect 22 on the affective component of attitudes, but it has a significant cumulative effect on the cognitive aspects of attitudes, especially their salience (p. 182)." McCombs and Shaw (1972) were the first media researchers to empirically test the agenda setting hypothesis. The basic hypothesis is that the media play a major role in shaping attitudes because audiences learn how much importance to attach to an issue or event from the amount and type of coverage given to it by the press. Becker, McCombs and McLeod (1975) noted that there is a growing assumption that if attitudes are important for study, they should be examined as part of an agenda setting model that specifies intermediate effects such as those on cognitions. O'Keefe and Mendelsohn (1974) and Weaver, McCombs and Spellman (1975) discussed the agenda-setting function of the press on Watergate. O'Keefe and Mendelsohn noted that the low importance voters accorded Watergate prior to the 1972 election could be attributed to the second-rank play given to Watergate by most of the mass media. One interesting finding in an agenda setting study reported by Becker, McCombs and McLeod (1975) is that although about half of the students who selected Watergate as the issue they most often discussed said they did so because it was in the news at the time, none used this reason to justify selecting Watergate as the most important issue to them personally. The researchers suggested that the media's agenda may be even stronger on discussion salience than on personal salience. Weaver, McCombs and Spellman stressed that by keeping Watergate high on the agenda for so many months, the media in effect told the public that it was an important criterion for making judgments about 23 political parties and candidates even after Nixon's resignation. De Facto Selective Exposure. Klapper (1960) stressed that the primary effect of persuasive mass communication is to reinforce and crystallize existing opinion. Klapper (1960), Sears and Freedman (1967), McCombs (1972) and Atkin (1973) noted that selective exposure helps to explain why persuasive mass communication reinforces existing;predispositions. The de facto selective exposure hypothesis holds that individuals are more likely to seek out messages that are compatible with their beliefs, atti- tudes, values and opinions than messages that are incompatible. In a critical review of the selective exposure literature, Sears and Freedman concluded that, although the evidence is not as conclusive as is often claimed, de facto selectivity holds since most audiences for mass communications apparently tend to overrepresent persons already sympathetic to the views being propounded and most persons seem to be exposed disproportionately to communications that support their opinions. Sears and Freedman, joined by Atkin six years later, also concluded that the available evidence does not support the proposition that individuals generally seek out suppor- tive information and avoid nonsupportive information. Atkin noted that the preference for supportive information appears to be relative rather than absolute because individuals typically choose a relatively greater number of reinforcing messages or pay closer attention to the messages while, at the same time, exposing themselves to some incon- sistent information. A study relevant to this point was conducted by 24 Grupp (1970) who found that political activists did not avoid news- casts in which developments of which they disapproved were reported. However, Grupp did find that the attentiveness to newscasts, parti- cularly to television newscasts, declined among members of the John Birch Society and the Americans for Democratic Action as their dissatisfaction with federal policy being reported increased. Atkin (1973) noted that research has shown that the major countering factor to self-selection is sheer accessibility-~that people tend to see and hear communications to the degree that they are readily available. Other researchers have noted that the social nature of interpersonal communication may also tend to minimize selec- tive exposure behavior (Chaffee, Stamm, Guerrero and Tipton, 1969). Tan (1973) in a study on attitudes toward women's liberation, found that the tendency for individuals to express preferences for infor- mation supportive of their attitudes can be suppressed or strengthened by the cultural norm of believing that it is important to listen to both sides and by conformity to role expectations. O'Keefe and Mendelsohn (1974) noted that the survey research on selectivity generally upholds the view that people are more likely to be exposed to mass communications that are compatible with their existing opinions and beliefs than to communications that are incom- patible. However, Sears and Freedman (1967) note that laboratory studies of mass communications often come to different conclusions than field studies because selective exposure occurs in the natural setting. O'Keefe and'Mendelsohn noted that survey research from Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet (1948) to Atkin (1971) has concentrated 25 primarily on political propaganda on candidates during election cam- paigns and has provided support for the proposition that persons who express themselves as committed to a candidate or party are predomi- nately exposed to communications favoring that candidate or party. The researchers noted that typically the research was conducted when the "already-decided" voters were most likely to be actively seeking reinforcing information prior to their final voting commitments. O'Keefe and Mendelsohn (1974) felt that Watergate presented a situation unique to the kinds of selective exposure research done in the past. For one thing, research could be focused on selectivity following the irrevocable votes of individuals in 1972 when Nixon was re-elected by a landslide. Also, the Watergate coverage was expected to be disconcerting to Nixon supporters. In addition, Watergate was a situation in which the availability of information was essentially the same for all voters and little information about Watergate came from advertising or literature from special interest groups as it does during the campaign. O'Keefe and Mendelsohn, who conducted surveys of voters in Summit County, Ohio, before the 1972 election and in May and August, 1973, concluded that there was strong evidence to support a de facto selective exposure model. They found that the 1972 voting behavior and political party identification clearly predicted the amount of exposure to the Senate Watergate hearings and general attention to Watergate related news. ‘McGovern voters were significantly more likely to have watched the hearings and paid attention to Watergate news than were Nixon voters and Democrats were significantly more 26 likely to have watched and paid attention than were the Republicans. In addition, the individuals interpreted messages, such as Nixon's speeches, according to their predispositions. The O'Keefe and Mendelsohn findings that stronger consistency efforts are observed in cases of irrevocable behavioral commitment, such as having voted for Nixon in 1972, is in line with previous cognitive consistency results reported by Festinger (1957) and Abelson, Aronson, McGuire, Newcomb, Rosenberg and Tannenbaum (1968) and more recently in Water- gate studies by Robinson (1974) and Bishop (1975). To Kill the Messenger A theoretical constant in attitude change literature during the past 30 years is the view that individuals strive to attain equilib- rium. Maccoby and Maccoby (1961) noted that the structural theoretical approaches to attitude change--Festinger's (1957, 1964) cognitive dis- sonance theory, Heider's (1946, 1958) balance theory, learning theory, Rosenberg's (1960) affective-cognitive consistency approach, McGuire's (1960) rational-syllogistic formulation, Osgood and Tannenbaum's (1955) congruity theory and Newcomb's (1953) symmetry mode1--all employ homeo- stasis, a balance-of-forces approach in which dissonance or imbalance or inconsistency gives rise to motives designed to restore equilibrium. The Maccobys stressed that the theorists all agree that attitude change does not necessarily arise from the arousal of the unsteady state and that the result may be an alternative course of action or the tolerance of the dissonance or the inconsistency. 27 The cognitive dissonance and congruity theories were used in this study to develop the hypotheses relating to selective exposure and blame the news media. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced by an individual when the bad features of the chosen alternative and the good features of the unchosen possibilities are in an inconsistent relationship with his decision. In the absence of a change in attitude, selective exposure and selective perception of information are ways of handling the dissonance. The principle of congruity holds that changes in evaluation are always in the direction of increased congruity with the existing frame of reference. Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955) argued that to the extent an individual changes his opinion, he will not derogate the source of the information, but to the extent that he resists changing his opin- ion, he will derogate the source instead. Tannenbaum (1968) wrote that one way a person can obtain congruity in a communication situa- tion is to negatively evaluate the source if the message is inconsis- tent with one's beliefs. Sargent (1965) found that individuals who rejected messages from respected sources that were consistent with their opinions modified their images of the communicators by evaluating them as being on the prejudiced end of an impartial-prejudiced scale. However, the results that Tannenbaum predicted were stronger--that the individual would derogate and attack the source to reduce the degree of incongruity. Research supporting this concept includes Festinger (1957), Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955), Sherif and Hovland (1961) and Tannenbaum and Gengel (1966). 28 Stone and Beell (1975) demonstrated a special case of congruity in their study on attitudes toward the messenger of bad news. Their study was designed to examine effects on a communicator which may be attributed to bad news consisting of reports of events or situations which threatened personal values, goals or security. The controlled experiment used students attending a summer journalism workshop as subjects. They were exposed to four versions of a simulated radio newscast. The authors noted that their results support the argument that the mass media share the hazards of the ancient Persian messengers who were killed when they brought bad tidings to the generals. The students held less favorable attitudes toward a newscaster when he brought bad news on a topic very important to them. The finding held in the case where the newscaster expressed bias--agreement with the content of the story--and when he gave an objective version of the story. Several recent studies have examined the resolution and toler- ance of cognitive inconsistency created by news events. Silverman (1971), who studied the attitudes of individuals toward Senator Edward Kennedy after the Chappaquiddick accident, and MacDonald and Majumder (1973), who studied the attitudes toward Senator Thomas Eagleton after his mental health history was reported, found that cog- nitive consistency theory could be generalized to field studies. Bishop (1975), who tested the cognitive consistency theory on a sample of 269 students through a self-administered questionnaire, found strong support for the consistency theory. Bishop's results showed that sub- jects whose attitudes toward Nixon had changed from favorable to 29 unfavorable following Watergate tended to hold beliefs about Watergate that were congruent with the change and that subjects who continued to support the President held beliefs that allowed them to tolerate the inconsistency generated by Watergate. Robinson (1974) noted that the accepted theories of opinion change based on the concept of psychological balance account for the findings of surveys conducted during the Senate Watergate Committee hearings in the summer of 1973. He found in a telephone panel survey of Eugene and Springfield, Ore., residents that the three months of televised hearings did not compel the public to regard Nixon as a felon or guilty of high crimes. He stressed that his findings parallel na- tional findings. The Gallup poll also showed that the months of hear- ings did not convince the public of Nixon's guilt or complicity in the Watergate coverup. However, the Gallup poll during this period did show an erosion in public support for Nixon's performance as President. Robinson stressed that the findings that Nixon endured three months of hearings without being judged guilty is not really as surprising as it is ironic: Given that the public in November 1972, gave Richard Nixon greater support than any Republican nominee has ever earned, one might have assumed that it would be difficult for that same public to forsake the President emotionally just seven months later. . . . The public made a commitment to the President. To assail that commitment involved a loss in affection for any institution, individual, or agency involved in the assault. Opinions about Nixon's guilt stayed relatively stable during the hearings, but affections toward him and his antagonists diminished with the testimony. It is interesting that the press and the politicians, the two harbingers of bad tidings, experienced losses in public support as the hearings wore on (p. 25). 30 Robinson found that as the media made greater psychological demands on those who had made a behavioral commitment to Nixon by voting for him in 1972, the ambivalence toward the media became greater. Robinson also found that the public became more cynical toward politicians and that the increase in cynicism.toward poli- ticians was slightly greater than the increase in skepticism toward Nixon. The commitment to overcome Nixon's substantial reservoir of support implied costs for both the committee and the media. This finding, which is consistent with Robinson's (1972) finding in a study on "The Selling of the Pentagon" television documentary, indi- cates that when the media, the President and the Congress are involved in institutional conflict, all suffer a loss in public esteem. LeRoy, Wotring and Lyle (1974), Kraus, Davis and Lee (1975), Edelstein (1974) and Edelstein and Tefft (1974) also examined atti- tudes toward the media during Watergate. LeRoy, Wotring and Lyle, who conducted a three-wave telephone survey that assessed the role played by public television's broadcasting of the hearings in four Florida cities during the U.S. Senate hearings during the summer of 1973, found that Democratic voters perceived significantly less bias in the news media toward Nixon in its coverage of the Watergate affair and coverup than did Republican voters. They also found that both public and commercial television viewers were more likely than nonviewers to disagree that there was bias against the Nixon admin- istration. Edelstein (1974) reported that in mid-June of 1973, 42 percent of a random sample of Longview, Wash., residents believed or believed 31 to a degree that the press was after Nixon. However, Edelstein and Tefft (1974) noted that devaluation of the source of information is a psychological defense necessitated by belief of an incongruous message. The central problem addressed in their studies was not media credibil- ity, but rather the capacity of media users to believe events and the actors in the events as they were reported by the mass media. The authors reported that 42 percent of the sample said at first they could not believe the events that occurred. Kraus, Davis and Lee studied media credibility and its relation- ship to the way the public, particularly Democrats who voted for Nixon in 1972, received and used media reports after Nixon's resignation. They found that Democrats who voted for Nixon in 1972 used the mass media, especially television, in limited but specific ways to gain dissonance reduction and to maintain equilibrium. Davis, Kraus and Lee (1975) contended that media credibility in the United States is situation or event specific because they found no evidence that dis- trust of the 'media for one type of information will generalize such that other forms of information are also distrusted (p. 32)." Watergate: The Printed Word A second-rate burglary attempt in the Watergate complex ulti- mately led to the resignation of the President of the United States. The burglary attempt was the forerunner of a series of events and revelations about the Nixon administration that spanned more than two years and provided a field day for writers, journalists and social scientists. The Library of Congress lists 52 separate titles of books 32 that include the word, Watergate.' There are two comprehensive bibliographies that index a portion of the thousands of articles written about Watergate. The Watergate Bibliography (1974) indexes articles from 76 publications covering the period from July, 1972, through February, 1974. Watergate: An Annotated Bibliography (1975) indexes 56 publications and covers the period from June, 1972, through August 24, 1974. Another valuable resource on Watergate is the 3- volume set published by the Congressional Quarterly Service on Water- ,gate: Chronology of a Crisis (1973, 1974, 1975). Even the social scientists got into the act, indicating that there may be something of the journalist in their statistical souls. Two collections of Watergate studies have been published to date--a special issue of Communication Research devoted to The Ervin Committee Hearings and Communication Research (1974) edited by Sidney Kraus and Steven H. Chaffee and a special issue of American Politichuarterly devoted to The Watergate Experience: Lessons for Empirical Theory (1975) edited by Chaffee. Chaffee and Kraus are seeking a publisher for still another collection of Watergate studies. In addition to the two published collections, Watergate studies are beginning to turn up as convention papers and in academic journals. Kraus and Chaffee (1974) noted that the Senate Watergate Com- mittee studies were in the tradition of "firehouse" research--a tradi- tion that requires social scientists to drop other projects temporarily, to apply whatever research tools are available to the great story of the moment and to be ready to redesign studies in progress if something happens while they are in the field. 33 Many of the Watergate studies have been cited earlier in this chapter. This section will include only the studies that concern the impact of Watergate. Davis, Kraus and Lee (1975) argued that a critical events analysis approach is useful in putting the Watergate research into perspective and in understanding how public opinion develops over time. Their premise is guided by their theoretical assumption that events can provide a force that moves opinion. The authors posited a tentative model for the public opinion formation process based on Watergate research and other studies. Under the model, the public opinion formation process char- acteristically begins by an event which is subsequently reported by the press. The Watergate burglary was a case in point. Opinion formation--a very slow process-~begins when receptive individuals receive the message from the media and talk about it. Individuals evaluate the message both in terms of their past judgments on the importance of similar kinds of messages to them personally and in terms of how important they feel others will feel the message is. The individual comes out of this process with publicly acceptable opinions. These publicly acceptable opinions are the ones that are reported in polls in the media. Then, based on this Public feedback, the elite groups in society-~public, corporate, social or media e1ites--structure, create or alter the structure of events that the press will cover and the process begins all over again. Davis, Kraus and Lee stressed that once the media set agendas by their continuing, prominent consideration and portrayal of certain events, it is only a 34 question of time before the specific body of knowledge becomes the basis of opinion formation. Prior to the 1972 election, the press covered Watergate like another partisan issue. In terms of the model, the message--which was not widely carried by the media--was evaluated as not being an impor- tant issue. With the exception of the Washington Post, when the press did cover the Watergate issue, it covered it like another partisan campaign issue. The charges of George S. McGovern, the Democratic Presidential candidate, were balanced in the press by White House denials. During this period, the public did not view Watergate as an important issue and the media, which gave Watergate second-rate play, was unable to influence the perceptions of Watergate as an important issue (O'Keefe and Mendelsohn, 1974; Davis, Kraus and Lee, 1975). The period of time from November, 1972, to May, 1973, when the Watergate seven were on trial can be characterized as a period in which the media set the agenda and in which the public responded by becoming aware of and rationalizing the Watergate political scandal (Davis, Kraus and Lee, 1975). The researchers noted that although Watergate information was perceived as being important, its impor- tance had not yet produced opinion change because it was not yet considered acceptable to publicly announce that one's confidence had been shaken in the Nixon administration. Most of the Watergate studies that have been reported were conducted during the Senate Watergate Committee hearings. These studies were the first to report changes in attitudes toward Nixon. 35 Chaffee and Becker (1975) found that every belief or opinion damaging to Nixon's position concerning Watergate was positively associated with listening to radio and television broadcasts of the Senate Watergate Committee, with reading newspaper and magazine stories about Watergate and with talking to friends about Watergate. Chaffee and Becker concluded that Watergate had a broad impact across the full range of their Madison, Wisc., mail sample. Hawkins, Pingree and Roberts (1975) reported that as early as May, 1973, California school children were reacting to President Nixon less favorably and were assigning him various degrees of culpability for the scandal. O'Keefe and Mendelsohn (1974) argued because of the unprece- dented media coverage, "if the media ever had a 'direct effect' on the citizens of this country at least in terms of making people aware of a specific series of events, it happened during the summer of the televised Senate hearings on Watergate (p. 346)." However, O'Keefe and Mendelsohn stressed that deep changes in public opinion toward Nixon had not occurred: All in all, our data and other findings suggest a highly aware public concerned about Watergate, albeit somewhat selectively. This high level of awareness does not appear to have been translated into deep changes in public atti- tudes and values regarding Richard Nixon. The vast majority of those who voted for him, and who had Republican party leanings, had not substantially turned against him as of August, 1973 (p. 363). This viewpoint is also taken by Robinson (1974) who noted that although the barrage of negative information about Nixon and his admin- istration continued for three months during the Senate Watergate hear- ings, "the President, through it all, lost respect, not his innocence (p. 28)." 36 Davis, Kraus and Lee characterized the Senate Watergate hear- ings period as one in which, for the most part, only Democrats and Independents changed their opinions about Nixon, while the Republicans continued to support Nixon. They explained that during this period it became acceptable for Democrats and Independents to alter their opinions about Nixon. They found that Republicans managed to pre- serve their respect for Nixon by cutting themselves off as much as possible from Watergate information and from those contacts in the community which might lead them to alter their perceptions on the importance of Watergate. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction A panel design--the use of one or more surveys with the same 53ample of respondents--was used to implement the study. The study “vaas designed in anticipation of Nixon's resignation or his impeach- 'nnent by the U.S. House of Representatives and subsequent conviction lay the U.S. Senate on charges contained in a bill of impeachment. ][t was decided prior to the implementation of the study that the Inumber of measures taken of survey respondents would be dependent thon events and the time span between events. Two major outcomes ‘vaere anticipated: (1) Nixon would be forced to resign before the impeachment process was completed by Congress or (2) Nixon would be Zianeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, convicted on impeach- IIleent charges by the U.S. Senate and would ultimately resign. If INIfionm were forced to resign before impeachment procedures were insti- 1t:‘lL‘l.ted, it was decided that there would be at least two measures taken 0 13 survey respondents--the initial survey in July, 1974, and one imnediately after he resigned. It was decided that if Congress went ‘t11blrough with the impeachment process, the initial survey would be 1'::-"Eiken in July, 1974, and additional measures would be taken as im- portant events unfolded. The surveys would be taken about three ‘nnxanths apart or, if events dictated, they would be timed to coincide 37 38 with the major news events of House action, Senate action and Nixon's resignation. As it turned out, Nixon resigned as President on Friday, August 9, 1974, and the second wave of interviews was conducted in the two-and-one-half week period following his resignation, from August 10 through August 27. The first wave of interviews was con- ducted in the two-and-one-half week period from July 10 through July 27. However, since the last four days of the July interview period overlapped with the first four days of the U.S. House Judic- iary Committee impeachment hearings, the interviews conducted during that four-day period were kept separate from other interviews. These 14 interviews were subsequently dropped from the analysis because the individuals tended to be more negative toward Nixon than the individ- uals who were interviewed earlier. The Sample Sample and sample error A systematic sample of 300 households was drawn from the 1974 Lansing Area phone book that was published in March, 1974. In addi- tion, a systematic sample of 30 additional households was drawn to provide a 10 percent overdraw to replace households that were vacant, torn down or otherwise unoccupied. When a household in the sample was found to be unoccupied, a replacement household was randomly drawn from the pool of 30 households. Twenty-nine of the additional households were added to the original sample to replace unoccupied households. 39 The sampling frame was the white pages of the phone book which includes Lansing and the suburbs of East Lansing, Okemos and Haslett. The sampling units were all households listed in the white pages. Individuals 18 years or older who were interviewed within the house- holds were selected by the following procedure. The interviewer flipped a coin to determine the starting point of which sex his first respondent would be. If heads came up, he started by interviewing a man and if tails came up, he started by interviewing a woman. However, if there were no one of that sex over 18 years of age in the household, then the interviewer was instructed to interview someone of the oppo- site sex. At the second and succeeding households, the interviewer asked to interview someone of the sex opposite to the sex of his pre- vious respondent. However, if the interviewer interviewed two women in a row, his next two respondents were men if they were at home. Interviewers were instructed to do as many of their interviews as possible at night when more men were at home. The objective was to keep the number of men and women interviewed as even as possible. The response rate on the first wave was 226 or 75 percent of the sample and the response rate on the second wave was 216 or 72 percent of the sample. Eighty—one percent or 182 of the respondents interviewed at Time 1 were also interviewed at Time 2. At Time 1, 12 percent of the sample declined to be interviewed and 13 percent of the sample could not be reached at home after at least three visits by interviewers. At Time 2, 14 percent of the sample declined to be interviewed and 14 percent could not be reached at home after at least three visits by interviewers. 40 The estimate of sampling error is based on the formula for error in a simple random sample. 'Moser and Kalton (1972) noted that a systematic sample can be treated as a simple random sample when the sampling units on the list from which the sample is drawn are arranged in such a way that they are not related to the subject of the survey. A conservative estimate of the sampling error is one in which the parameters p and q in the formula are based on a 50-50 split be- tween individuals in the sample on a key variable, such as their com- posite attitude toward Nixon. Assuming that half of the people in the sample had a favorable attitude toward Nixon and half of the people in the sample had an unfavorable attitude toward Nixon, a conservative estimate of sampling error is 6.6 percent for the first wave sample size of 226 and 6.8 percent for the second wave sample size of 216 at the 95 percent level of confidence. The sampling error for the first wave was computed as follows: as M 24% = 2(3.3) = plus or minus 6.6 percent 2 S.E. where: p = .5, q = .5 and N = 226. However, none of the variables in the study produced a 50-50 attitude split. For example, in the first wave of interviews, 70 per- cent of those interviewed had an unfavorable composite attitude toward Nixon, 22 percent had a favorable composite attitude toward Nixon and 8 percent were neutral toward Nixon. This produced a 70-30 split if the neutrals are added in with those who have a favorable attitude toward Nixon. The sampling error on this variable at Time 1 was plus 41 or minus 6 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence. At Time 2, there was an 80-20 split on the composite attitude toward Nixon, with the 20 percent representing favorable and neutral attitudes. The sampling error at Time 2 for the Nixon variable was plus or minus 5.4 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence. It can be assumed, then, that the sampling error estimate for variables in the study for a Time 1 N of 226 and a Time 2 N of 216 ranges from plus or minus 5.4 to plus or minus 6.8 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence, depending primarily upon how the attitudes of those in the sample are split on the variables. The sampling error estimate for an N of l82--for respondents interviewed in both waves-- ranges from plus or minus 5.9 to plus or minus 7.8 at the 95 percent level of confidence. Sample andgpopulation The Lansing metropolitan area which includes Ingham, Clinton and Eaton Counties is the fourth largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) in Michigan. In 1970, the Lansing SMSA, which ranks after Detroit, Grand Rapids and Flint, had a population of 378,423. In 1970, Lansing had a population of 131,546, East Lansing had a population of 47,540, Okemos had a population of 7,770 and Haslett's population was not listed. Lansing, which is in the south central part of Michigan's lower peninsula, is the state capital. East Lansing and Okemos are bedroom suburbs that have grown up around Michigan State University which had an enrollment of 44,966 students during the 1973-74 school 42 year. The Michigan Department of Commerce attributes the presence of the state capital and the university to the fact that the Lansing SMSA has the highest percentage employed in public administration in the state and a very high proportion of its workers employed in ser- vice industries. Although Lansing has a large Oldsmobile plant, manufacturing, transportation and communications have some of the lowest shares of employment in Michigan. The Lansing SMSA has the highest percentage of 15 through 34-year-olds and the lowest percentage of 45 through 64-year-olds in the state. Because of the presence of the University, the educational level of Lansing area residents is relatively high, particularly in East Lansing and Okemos. In 1970, the median educational attainment of Lansing residents over 25 years of age was 12.2, compared to a median of 15.4 for East Lansing residents and a median of 16 for Okemos residents. The population of Lansing, East Lansing and Okemos is predominantly white; the 1970 census listed the percentage of blacks as 6 percent. The sex, race and age of the individuals in the sample closely approximate these demographic characteristics in the population. Table 1 provides a comparison of the sample statistics with the 1970 U.S. Census population statistics for Lansing, East Lansing and Okemos. Table 1 shows that the breakdowns for sex, race and age of the indi- viduals in the sample at Time 1 are well within the conservative sampling error of plus or minus 6.6 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence. TABLE 1 Percentages for Sex, Race and Age of Sample and Population Age 18 and Older Sample Population Lansing, East Lansing, East Lansing & Okemos Lansing & Okemos N = 224 N = 129,103* Sex Male 45% 48% Female 55% 52% Race White 93% 93% Black 5% 6% Other 2% 1% Age 18 - 30 46% 48% 31 - 45 19% 20% 46 - 64 26% 22% 65 & Older 9% 10% *1970 census data. 44 The sample statistics for education cannot directly be com- pared to the population statistics for Lansing, East Lansing and Okemos because the published census data for East Lansing and Okemos include only the number of years of school completed for individuals 25 years of age and older. However, a rough comparison can be made between the sample education statistics and the census education statistics for the Lansing SMSA which does include a breakdown of the number of years of school completed to age 18. Table 2 provides a rough comparison between the educational attainment for the sample and for the three-county Lansing SMSA. The table shows that the educa- tional attainment of individuals in the sample is higher than the educational attainment of the population of the Lansing SMSA. Based on the Lansing SMSA data, it is probable that the educational attain- ment of the sample at Time 1 is not within the conservative sample error of plus or minus 6.6 percent at the 95 percent level of confi- dence. However, it is also probable that the true educational attainment of the population of Lansing, East Lansing and Okemos is higher than the 1970 Lansing SMSA because the population data was gathered in 1969 and the sample data was gathered five years later and because the most highly educated persons are more likely to be residing in the Lansing, East Lansing and Okemos portions of the SMSA. 45 TABLE 2 Percentages for Education of Sample and Population Age 18 and Older Sample Population Lansing, East Lansing & Okemos Lansing SMSA * N = 224 N = 245,498 Number of Years of School Completed Elementary 3% 14% Some High School 6% 17% High School Graduate 24% 37% Some College 36% 20% College Graduate Or'More 31% A 13% * 1970 census data. With the exception of education, the demographics of the sample closely approximate the demographics of the population of Lansing, East Lansing and Okemos. This allows generalizations to be made about the population based on the sample results. However, to the extent that education affects the variables of interest, the study results cannot be generalized to the Lansing, East Lansing and Okemos area. 46 The Questionnaires Design of questionnaires The personal interview questionnaires in Appendix A and B were developed for the Time 1 and Time 2 surveys. Structured questions were used to elicit self-reports by the respondents on their use of the mass media and on their attitudes. The question- naires were designed to elicit the following sequence of information: (1) report of information seeking behavior in all media, (2) attitudes, selective exposure behavior and attentiveness to the content of news stories and (3) demographics. The first two questions were warmup questions that were designed to be extremely easy questions that anyone could answer "yes" or "no" to without any trouble. The warmup questions were used to establish rapport with the respondent and to lay the groundwork for the more specific, detailed questions that follow. Questions 3 through 15 on the Watergate-Impeachment Survey I and questions 3 through 22 and questions 41 and 42 on the Watergate- Impeachment Survey II ask for self-reports on information seeking behavior. Filter questions were used throughout the information seeking sections to determine whether individuals were qualified to answer succeeding questions. For example, questions 3 through 14 in both surveys ask for self-reports on the amount of information seeking in each of the mass mediums. The questions on the number of Watergate stories and resignation stories read in newspapers and magazines, watched on television or listened to on radio are preceded by two filter questions. The filter questions are used to determine if the 47 respondent had a chance to read a newspaper or a news magazine or to watch television or radio newscasts and, if so, if they had a chance to read, watch or listen to Watergate stories at Time 1 and resigna- tion stories at Time 2. Questions 16 through 42 on the Watergate-Impeachment Survey I and questions 23 through 40 and 43 through 49 on the Watergate- Impeachment Survey II were aimed at tapping attitudes and determining selective exposure behavior and attentiveness to news content. With the exception of two filter questions on the Time 2 survey, all of these questions were 1 to 5 rating scales. Most of the rating scales were Likert scales which presented respondents with a psychological continuum ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The Likert rating scales were used to determine the direction and intensity of agreement. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a list of statements. Some of the statements were positively worded and some were negatively worded so that the respondent would consider each statement carefully. This was done to prevent response set--a situa- tion in which individuals automatically respond to questions in the same way. A second step was also taken to avoid response set. About half way through the Likert items in both questionnaires, a series of rating scale questions with varying formats were asked. This was done to keep respondents from becoming bored with agreeing or disagreeing with statements. 48 The variables of interest in the study were measured by the use of a series of statements which themselves formed a scale. These variable scales were summated or cumulative rating Scales that ranked individuals according to their responses to the set of attitude statements that made up each scale. Demographic questions were included at the end of the question- naires. Questions 43 through 50 on the Watergate-Impeachment Survey I and questions 50 through 57 on the Watergate-Impeachment Survey II ask for demographic information. Pretest of questionnaires A pretest of the questionnaire for the Watergate-Impeachment Survey I was conducted in the Michigan State University Union Building on Friday, June 21, 1974. In an effort to include individuals in the pretest who would be reasonably representative of Lansing area resi- dents, a majority of the 20 individuals interviewed were parents, friends and relatives of Lansing area 4-Hers who were attending work- shops in the student union. The pretest included 11 women and 9 men. Eighteen were white, one was black and one was Oriental. All of those interviewed were over 18 with the exception of an 15-year-old black girl and under 65 with the exception of an 85-year-old retired man. Their occupations included housewives, teachers, a computer programmer, a factory worker, a social worker, a secretary, a sales clerk, an unemployed worker and a civil engineer. Each interview took about 20 minutes to complete with the exception of the interview with the retired man 49 which took about 45 minutes. The item pool for the rating scale questions was content specific. Items were generated from Watergate-related events, facts and opinions reported by the news media and from information gained by asking open-ended questions of individuals from differing social and educational groups about what they thought about Watergate, Nixon, the news media and the news about Watergate. The item pool was then narrowed down to a manageable number of statements for the pretest. Since it has been found that neither extreme nor neutral statements work well in Likert scales (Mosher and Kalton, 1972), these kinds of statements were not included in the questionnaire constructed for the pretest. The pretest provided useful information on how the wording of ambiguous or imprecise questions could be improved. Poor questions were revised or thrown out. For example, many individuals inter- viewed on the pretest were hostile toward a question aimed at deter- mining whether they felt Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense. The word "guilty" was offensive to many. This response by a woman respondent was typical: "Isn't a man innocent in our system of justice until he is proven guilty." All references to guilt or inno- cence were dropped from the Time 1 survey. The initial work on the construction of the scales used in the study was based on the results of the pretest. An item analysis, which involved examining the internal consistency of the respondents to each of the statements used on the pretest, was done to identify poor items. Items to be included in the Watergate-Impeachment Survey I 50 were selected on the basis of their ability to discriminate between the upper 25 percent and the lower 25 percent of the subjects on the variables of interest. Four summated rating scales, which are dis- cussed in detail later in this chapter, were tentatively constructed from the pretest. They were constructed to measure attitudes toward Nixon and the news media, selective exposure and attentiveness to news content behavior. The internal consistency or reliability of the items selected for each scale as measured by the discriminatory power of each scale is shown in Table 3. The table shows that the scales meet the Likert criterion of internal consistency since they demonstrate the ability to distinguish subjects in the extreme quartiles--those who strongly agree and those who strongly disagree with the statements. The difference in the mean scores of the two extreme quartiles ranges from a difference of 1.2 for the selective exposure scale to 2.5 for the Nixon attitude scale. TABLE 3 Discriminatory Power of Items in Four Scales on Pretest l Mean Scores Discrim- Mean Scale Upper Lower inatory for Total 25% 25% Power* Group Nixon Attitude 4.8 2.3 2.5 3.5 Media Attitude 3.5 1.6 1.9 2.5 Attention to News Content 3.2 1.3 1.9 2.2 Selective Exposure 3.4 2.2 1.2 2.9 * Difference between the mean scores of the upper quartile and the lower quartile. 51 Work on the construction of the questionnaire for the Watergate- Impeachment Survey II began as soon as it was clear that Nixon was going to resign. The second survey was patterned very closely after the first survey. For the most part, the questions on the amount of information seeking and on the other four scales were retained with minor revisions in content so that comparisons could be made between Time 1 and Time 2. Some of the questions asked at Time 1 were changed to the past tense or the wording was changed to read "the events leading up to Nixon's resignation and the transfer of power to Vice President Ford” from "the Watergate-Impeachment issue." Minor changes in question wording at Time 2 may have affected responses. However, since the study was a field study that reflected the changing political situation, it was not possible to control for or to measure the response error that may have resulted. Although the goal of making comparisons between Time 1 and Time 2 was kept in mind, there was an attempt to also bring a fresh- ness and an immediacy to the questionnaire so as not to give respon- dents the feeling at Time 2 that they were going over old ground. Questions specifically tied to earlier events or which provided only relatively useful information at Time 1 were dropped to make room for fresh questions about media use during the resignation period. The pretest for the Watergate-Impeachment Survey 11 question- naire was conducted on Friday, August 9, 1974, the day that Nixon resigned. Sixteen persons were interviewed at a shopping center. The internal consistency or reliability of the items in the four scales at Time 2 as measured by the discriminatory power of each scale is shown in Table 4. The Table shows that the scales have the ability to 52 distinguish subjects in the upper and lower quartiles. The difference in the mean scores in the two extreme quartiles ranges from 1.2 for the media attitude scale to 2.6 for the selective exposure scale. TABLE 4 Discriminatory Power of Items in Four Scales on Pretest 2 Mean Scores Discrim- Mean Scale Upper Lower inatory for Total 25% 25% Power* Group Nixon Attitude 2.8 1.3 1.5 2.0 Media Attitude 4.5 3.3 1.2 4.0 Attention to News Content 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.8 Selective Exposure 3.6 1.0 2.6 1.5 *Difference between the mean scores of the upper quartile and the lower quartile. Data Collection The personal interviews were conducted primarily by television and radio and journalism students at Michigan State University. The interviewing at Time 1 was made part of the course requirements for TR-335 and TR-831, an undergraduate and a graduate research course taught by Prof. John D. Abel. The author conducted training sessions for the interviewers and coordinated the field work, keeping in close contact with the interviewers by phone and by checking with the stu- dents during the class periods to see if they were having any problems. The television and radio students obtained a 42 percent response rate which was boosted to a 75 percent rate by interviews conducted by the author and journalism students who had been hired and trained. 53 Many of the same interviewers at Time 1 were hired to conduct interviews at Time 2. In addition, other individuals--mostly journal- ism students--were hired and trained. Telephone checks were made with about 10 percent of the respondents selected at random at Time 1 and Time 2 to verify that the interviews had been completed. At Time 1, interviewers were instructed to hand respondents letters on Michigan State University letterhead that were signed by Prof. Abel and the author. The letter, which is in Appendix C, stresses the importance of the participation of the respondent in the study and guarantees that the respondent would remain anonymous. The letter also listed a phone number the respondent could call if he had questions about the study. The letter, which was given to all respon- dents at Time 1 and only to those respondents at Time 2 who were not interviewed at Time 1, was part of the standard introduction made by interviewers. The introduction to the Time 1 survey is in Appendix A and the introduction to the Time 2 survey is in Appendix B. Interviewers used response cards to provide a sense of involve- ment for the respondents in the interview process. The cards, which listed the response categories to questions, reduced the length of the interview and saved the interviewer's voice because he didn't have to read the responses for every question. For the Likert scale questions, respondents were handed cards with a l to 5 scale printed across the top and with the following answer categories written on them: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and strongly disagree. Cards were also used for rating scales on the degree of concern about 54 Watergate at Time 1 and Nixon's resignation at Time 2 and the support Nixon questions. In addition, to avoid directly asking an individual what his household's income was, the individual was handed a card that listed income categories from A through G. The individual was asked to give the letter that fit his household's total annual gross income. Development of Scales Factor analysis, scale construction and reliability and validity Factor analysis was used to confirm and refine the a priori classification and scales of items constructed on the basis of pre- test results since factor analysis is a method of finding clusters of variables that correlate more highly among themselves than they do with variables not included in the cluster. The use of factor analysis as a confirmation of a priori classification requires that the old criticism--that one only gets out of factor analysis what one puts in--must be dealt with. Cattell (1965) acknowledged that certain types of factor analysis in which variables are put in a certain order from the beginning are danger- ously vulnerable to this criticism. However, Cattell discounted this possibility in cases where factor axes are rotated to pass through the centroids of clusters which was the case in the varimax system of rotation that was used. Cattell wrote that even in cases where the researcher's subjective prejudices dictate the items to suit his theories, the factor analysis results are still a case of "man proposes and God disposes (p. 432)." 55 A four-factor solution that provided a varimax rotated factor matrix after rotation with kaiser normalization was used on all con— tinuous variables for each of the two waves of interviews. The factor analysis for the first wave produced three interpretable factors. The results can be summarized as follows: 1. Variables reflecting attitudes toward President Nixon and attitudes toward the mass media coverage of the Watergate-Impeachment issue had high loadings on Factor 1. However, the variables reflect- ing attitudes toward President Nixon also had high loadings on Factor 3. 2. Variables reflecting information seeking behavior on the Watergate-Impeachment issue had high loadings on Factor 2. 3. Of the 27 variables included in the factor analysis all but eight had a plus or minus .50 or higher loading on one of the three factors. Since the factor analysis of the same variables on the second wave of interviews reflected the changes, if any, that occurred be- tween Time 1 and Time 2, the factor analyses are not directly compar- able. However, it is useful for scale construction to note that four of the five attitude toward Nixon variables that loaded on two factors at Time 1 loaded on only one factor at Time 2. One interpretation that can be given to this is that prior to Nixon's resignation, atti- tudes toward the adversaries in the news event--President Nixon and the messengers of the news about his involvement in Watergate and the subsequent coverup--were indistinguishable to the public. 56 The three major dependent variable scales, created as a result of the Time 1 factor analysis, are shown in Table 5. Since the atti- tudes toward Nixon and the news media eventually became distinguish- able to the respondents, two separate scales were formed--a scale measuring the composite attitude toward Nixon and a scale measuring whether the news media were out to get Nixon. The third major scale was an information seeking scale on the attentiveness to the content of news stories. TABLE 5 Three Major Dependent Variable Scales Constructed from Factor Loadings on Time 1 Variables Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 * Scale 1 The House of Representatives should impeach Nixon. -.58969 -.1l999 -.49549 .23989 Nixon shouldn't be impeached because there are no grounds. .69694 .13644 .38252 -.1lO43 Watergate reveals corruption in the Nixon administration. .54737 -.01973 -.04589 .20882 I support Nixon at this point in time. .71095 .06500 .44699 -.l8368 Rating of Nixon's overall performance as President. .55554 .03605 .60946 -.13303 TABLE 5--Continued 57 Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Scale 2* The news media are out to get Nixon. .73084 .08019 .10886 -.02719 Media have not been fair in their coverage of Watergate. .80113 .05896 .11351 .01434 Media did country great ser- vice by Watergate reporting. -.62691 -.05931 -.17832 .13738 Media have blown Watergate way out of proportion. .79214 .20329 .25554 -.04442 Scale 3“ I read paper to find out latest Watergate news. -.00219 -.53222 -.27262 .40930 I listen to newscasts to find out the latest Watergate news. -.04778 -.56420 -.28201 .42241 I don't pay careful attention to stories on Watergate. .22871 .70735 .07859 .05823 I avoid reading news stories on Watergate. .20950 .73051 .03325 .02481 I keep up on Watergate so I won't miss anything. -.09924 -.67614 -.O8352 .21527 * Scales: (l) composite attitude toward Nixon, (2) blame the news media and (3) attentiveness to content of news stories. 58 In addition to the three major dependent variable scales con- structed with the aid of factor analysis, a fourth major dependent variable scale was also constructed. The fourth scale is a summated scale created by adding the number of categories a respondent checked for the number of news stories read in newspapers and news magazines, listened to on radio and viewed on television on the Watergate- Impeachment issue. An analysis of variance technique was used to compute Cronbach's alpha on each of the scales at Time 1 and Time 2. Cronbach's alpha, a reliability measure, reflects the homogeneity among items included in the scale. The items included in the four dependent variable scales for Time 1 and Time 2 and Cronbach's alpha are represented in Table 6. Cronbach's alpha is the lowest for the amount of information seeking scales. However, this is to be expected and desired since newspapers, television, radio and news magazines are heterogeneous news mediums. TABLE 6 Cronbach's Alpha: Reliability of the Four Major Dependent Variable Scales Nixon Blame Attention Amount of Time Attitude News Media to Information Scale Scale Content Seeking T1 .89 .86 .81 .67 T 82 .83 .70 53 59 Since factor analysis is involved with questions of validity, the validity of the three scales created with the aid of factor analysis can be assessed. It must be noted here that the question of validity does not arise (Torgerson, 1958) for the amount of informa- Ition seeking scale because the number of stories read, listened to or Iwatched is isomorphic to reality. The extent to which variables load on a factor represents the factorial composition of measures and provides confirmation of three types of validity-~predictive validity, content validity and construct validity (Nunnally, 1967). Nunnally noted that (1) for predictive validity, factor analysis is primarily important for suggesting pre- dictors that will work well when applied to the data, (2) for content validity, factor analysis provides circumstantial evidence on which variables are representative of the specified domain of content, and (3) for construct validity, factor analysis provides the internal statistical structure of a set of variables said to measure a con- struct. A fifth dependent variable scale was created to measure selective exposure to information supportive of Nixon. The starting point for the development of this scale was a two-variable subset that loaded highly with the attentiveness to content variables in the factor analysis but which differed from the other attentiveness to content variables because the subset was specifically directed at determining selective exposure rather than determining individuals information seeking behavior. The two variables were aimed at III I III I. [.1 .H II. 60 determining whether individuals paid attention when Nixon or someone on his staff explained Nixon's side of the Watergate-Impeachment issue. However, because this variable subset did not directly tap an indi— vidual's preference for information supportive of Nixon, a third variable was added that was aimed at determining whether the indi- vidual preferred to seek information supportive of Nixon. The addition of the third variable considerably reduced the homogeneity of the scale. Cronbach's coefficient alpha for Time 1 is .37 and .04 for Time 2. It must be kept in mind that these scales are not homogeneous. However, Cattell (1965) noted that it is some- times hard to come up with a scale that simultaneously has high validity and high homogeneity. Cattell wrote that, in a good test, such low homogeneity probably has to be deliberately arranged to provide certain advantages in construction and use. He added that for the sake of control and understanding, it is always desirable to know what the homogeneity of any given scale is, but if the scale behaves as it should, low homogeneity should never be considered a defect. What Cattell appears to be saying is that if a scale works as predicted in a hypothesis test, then its use can be justified as the sacrifice of homogeneity to validity. 61 Statement of Testable Hypotheses and Operationalization of Variables Null Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the mean scores of individuals on the two information seeking scales at Time 1 and Time 2. Symbolically: HO: p2 = “1 Ho: ”2:”1 Where: 1 = Mean scores of individuals on the information seeking scales at Time 1 M II Mean scores of individuals on the information seeking scales at Time 2 Info Seeking Scale 1 = Amount of information as measured by the number of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue at Time 1 and the events leading up to Nixon's resignation at Time 2 that each individual read in newspapers and magazines, listened to on radio news broadcasts and watched on TV news broadcasts Info Seeking Scale 2 = Attentiveness to content of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue at Time 1 and the events leading up to Nixon's resignation at Time 2 that each individual read, listened to or watched as measured by the extent to which each individual agreed or disagreed with statements aimed at determining his attention level (the scale ranged from 1 for a very high attention level to 5 for a very low attention level). II 1 H l (I I'll 'll‘ ll {[1 1| ll 11‘“ [I l ‘- ,iC 62 Alternative Hypothesis 1: The mean score of individuals on the amount of information seeking scale will be higher at Time 2 than at Time 1 and the mean score of individuals on the attentiveness of content of news stories scale will be lower at Time 2 than at Time 1. - . . >. Symbolically. H1. H2 H1 Where: Legend is the same as for Null Hypothesis 1. Null Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the mean scores on the two information seeking scales of individuals who are uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached and those who have made up their minds on whether Nixon should be impeached. ' - - + + + Symbolically. HO. D3 pl “2 114 us 4 + + + =“1 U2 H4 ”5 4 Where, on Time 1: H l ‘ Group 1 individuals strongly agree that Nixon should be impeached 2 = Group 2 individuals agggg that Nixon should be impeached 3 = Group 3 individuals are uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached 4 = Group 4 individuals disagree that Nixon should be impeached 5 = Group 5 individuals strongly_disagree that Nixon should be impeached 63 Info Seeking Scale 1 = Amount of information as measured by the number of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue that each individual read in newspapers and magazines, listened to on radio news broadcasts and watched on TV news broadcasts Info Seeking Scale 2 = Attentiveness to content of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue as measured by the extent to which each individual agreed or disagreed with statements aimed at determining his attention level (the scale ranged from 1 for a very high attention level to 5 for a very low attention level). Where, on Time 2: H II Group 1 individuals strongly agree that Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense 2 = Group 2 individuals ggggg that Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense 3 = Group 3 individuals are uncertain about whether Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense 4 = Group 4 individuals disagree that Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense 5 = Group 5 individuals strongly disagree that Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense Info Seeking Scale 1 = The amount of information as measured by the number of news stories on events leading up to Nixon's resigna- tion that each individual read in magazines and newspapers, listened to on radio news broadcasts and watched on TV news broadcasts 64 Info Seeking Scale 2 = Attentiveness to content of news stories on the events leading up to Nixon's resignation as measured by the extent to which each individual agreed or disagreed with state- ments aimed at determining his attention level (the scale ranged from 1 for a very high attention level to 5 for a very low atten- tion level). Alternative Hypothesis 2: Individuals who are uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached will have (1) a higher mean score on the amount of information seeking scale and (2) a lower mean score on the attentiveness to content of news stories scale than will individuals who have made up their minds on whether Nixon should be impeached. u +u +111 +111 1 2 4 5 - . . > Symbolically. H1. MB 4 + + + (”1 “2 “4 ”5 H : u 1 3 4 Where: Legend is the same as for Null Hypothesis 2. Null Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in the mean scores on the two information seeking scales of individuals who are very concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment and the mean scores of all other individuals. + u2+u3+u4 “‘5 Symbolically: HO: M1 = 4 + + + H-u=M2 “3 “’4 ”5 O' l 4 65 Where, on Time 1: p—a II Group 1 individuals are very concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment 2 = Group 2 individuals are concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment 3 = Group 3 individuals are neither concerned nor unconcerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment 4 = Group 4 individuals are unconcerned about how they per- sonally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment 5 = Group 5 individuals are very unconcerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment Info Seeking Scale 1 = Amount of information as measured by the number of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue that each indi- vidual read in newspapers and magazines, listened to on radio news broadcasts and watched on TV news broadcasts Info Seeking Scale 2 = Attentiveness to content of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue as measured by the extent to which each individual agreed or disagreed with statements aimed at determining his attention level (the scale ranged from 1 for a very high attention level to 5 for a very low attention level). Where, on Time 2: 1 = Group 1 individuals are very concerned about how they per- sonally would be affected by Nixon's resignation and the transfer of power to Ford Info Info 66 2 = Group 2 individuals are concerned about how they per- sonally would be affected by Nixon's resignation and the transfer of power to Ford 3 = Group 3 individuals are neither concerned nor unconcerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's resignation and the transfer of power to Ford 4 = Group 4 individuals are unconcerned about how they per- sonally would be affected by Nixon's resignation and the transfer of power to Ford 5 = Group 5 individuals are very unconcerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's resignation and the transfer of power to Ford Seeking Scale 1 = The amount of information as measured by the number of news stories on events leading up to Nixon's resigna- tion that each individual read in newspapers and magazines, listened to on radio news broadcasts and watched on TV news broadcasts Seeking Scale 2 = Attentiveness to content of news stories on the events leading up to Nixon's resignation as measured by the extent to which each individual agreed or disagreed with state- ments aimed at determining his attention level (the scale ranged from 1 for a very high attention level to 5 for a very low attention level). 67 Alternative Hypothesis 3: Individuals who are very concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment will have (1) a higher mean score on the amount of information seeking scale and (2) a lower mean score on the attentiveness to content of news stories scale than will other individuals. It +1» +1» +11 2 3 4 5 a . z > Symbolically. H1 H1 4 + f 2.5 at Time 1 to an average of 2.3 at Time 2. TABLE 9 Paired t-test on Composite Attitude toward Nixon at Time 1 and Time 2 l-Tailed 53 cale Time 1 Time 2 Difference Prob- Mean Mean in Means t-Value ability INTixon Composite A ttitude* 2.5319 2.2604 - . 2714 -5 .65 .000 *Nixon composite attitude is on a summated scale of 5 items; *E:ach item is on a 1-5 scale where 1 is a very unfavorable attitude tloward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. 93 Although the paired t-test--a fairly powerful statistical test that is generally able to detect differences between continuous vari- ables if they exist--showed that attitudes toward Nixon were slightly more negative at Time 2 than at Time 1, this difference is not appar- ent in Table 10. The difference is not reflected in the turnover table because when the data were collapsed from continuous variables to form categorical frequency distributions, there was a resulting loss of information that does not reflect the slight differences that do exist. Also, it must be noted here that the turnover table can not be relied upon with complete confidence because of the small number of individuals represented in some of the cells. However, Table 10 is useful as a gross measure of shifts in attitudes. Table 10 shows that 70 percent of the respondents who had formed their opinions of Nixon prior to the House Judiciary Committee hear- :ings stuck to those same opinions from the Judiciary hearings on tihrough the period of Nixon's resignation. However, about 30 percent c>f the respondents shifted their opinions from Time 1 to Time 2. Janividuals who did not change their opinions are included in the <3.iagonals of the table. The table shows that individuals who were neutral toward Nixon at Time 1 were more likely to change their atti- 1:L‘udes toward Nixon than were those who were either for or against 15‘ ixon. About the same percentage of individuals who originally had ‘Ezither unfavorable or favorable attitudes toward Nixon stuck with these attitudes after Nixon resigned. Seventy-two percent of the 3i:ndividuals who had unfavorable attitudes toward Nixon at Time 1 also 94 had unfavorable attitudes toward Nixon at Time 2 and 71 percent of the individuals who had favorable attitudes toward Nixon at Time 1 also had favorable attitudes toward Nixon at Time 2.- In addition, 64 per- cent of those who were neutral at Time 1 remain neutral at Time 2. Most of the individuals who were favorable or unfavorable to- ward Nixon at Time 1 and who shifted their opinions, tended to regress toward the mean at Time 2. Twenty-six percent of the respondents who originally had unfavorable attitudes toward Nixon softened their atti- tudes after he was forced out of office and the 26 percent of the respondents who originally had favorable attitudes toward Nixon moved into a neutral position after Nixon's resignation. The individuals who were neutral at Time 1 showed the greatest shifts in attitude. Twenty-seven percent of those who were neutral at Time 1 had unfavor- able attitudes toward Nixon at Time 1 and 9 percent showed a favorable- toward-Nixon attitude shift at Time 2. TABLE 10 Turnover Table Showing the Shift in Composite Attitudes toward Nixon at Time 1 and Time 2 N=180 at Time 1 and Time 2 21112.1 Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Time 2 n=93 n=56 n=3l Unfavorable n=83 72% 27% 3% Neutral n=68 26% 64% 26% Favorable n=29 2% 9% 71% * _ fl Total 100% 100% 100% 95 Attitudes toward the news media Individuals reacted to the role the news media played in reporting the events that led to the President's resignation. There are two aspects of the blame the messenger phenomenon that the study shows: (1) although the majority of the individuals did not blame the news media for its role in reporting the Watergate-related events, there was a small core of individuals who did blame the news media and (2) individuals were less likely to blame the news media at Time 2 than they were at Time 1. The core of individuals who felt that the news media were out to get Nixon was 10.6 percent of all individuals interviewed at Time 1 and 5.6 percent of all individuals interviewed at Time 2. A one-tailed t-test was used to determine whether there was a (iifference between the means on the blame the news media scale at UEime 2 and Time 1. The t-test included only the 182 individuals who Veere interviewed at both Time 1 and Time 2. Table 11 shows that the ‘nnedia fared significantly better at Time 2 than they did at Time 1. UEhe blame the news media scale ran from 1 for strong agreement with estatements that the news media were out to get Nixon to 5 for strong The blame (Sisagreement that the news media were out to get Nixon. 1:he news media scale went from an average of 3.5 at Time 1 to 3.8 at TJTime 2. 96 TABLE 11 Paired t-test on the Blame the News Media Scale at Time 1 and Time 2 Differ- l-Tailed Time 2 Time 1 ence t-Value Prob- Mean Mean in Means ability Blame 'Media 3.760 3.503 .2569 4.91 .000 Scale* * Blame news media is a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement with statements that the news media were out to get Nixon. Table 12 shows the shift in attitudes of individuals on the blame the news media scale. However, the turnover table can not be relied upon with complete confidence because of the small number of individuals represented in some of the cells. It is presented here (only as a gross measure of shifts in attitudes. The turnover data presented in Table 12 shows that the indi- \ziduals who felt that the media were not out to get Nixon at Time 1 Ireinforced that attitude at Time 2. Ninety-four percent of the jLndividuals who did not blame the news media were of that same opinion eat Time 2. The major shifts in opinion occurred in the group that 'lalamed the news media and the group that was neutral toward the news lanedia. ‘Most of the individuals put less blame on the news media at TEime 2. Of the group that blamed the news media at Time 1, 33 per- <:ent continued to blame the news media. However, 44 percent of this Egroup shifted to a neutral opinion of the news media and 22 percent sshifted to a position of not blaming the news media. Of the 97 individuals who were neutral toward the news media, 36 percent re- mained neutral, 58 percent shifted to a position of not blaming the news media and only 6 percent shifted to a blame the news media attitude at Time 2. TABLE 12 Turnover Table that Shows the Shift in Attitudes on the Blame the News Media Scale at Time 1 and Time 2 N=180 at Time 1 and Time 2 Time 1 Media Is Media Is Neutral Media Is NOT Out To Get Toward Out To Get Nixon Nixon Nixon Time 2 n=18 n?36 n=126 Media Is Out To Get Nixon 33% 6% 1% n?9 Media Is Neutral Toward Nixon 44% 36% 5% n=27 Media Is NOT Out To Get Nixon 22% 58% 94% n=144 "“' ""' ""‘ Total 100% 100% 100% jSelective exposure A small core of individuals showed a preference for information asupportive of Nixon. Of the individuals interviewed in both waves, 19 percent at Time 1 and 13 percent at Time 2 indicated that they listened to, paid attention to or preferred information on Nixon's side of the story. 98 A one-tailed t-test was used to determine whether there was a difference between the means on the exposure to information suppor- tive of Nixon scale at Time 1 and Time 2. The t-test included only the 182 individuals who were interviewed at both Time 1 and Time 2. Table 13 shows that there is a significant difference in selective exposure behavior at Time 1 and at Time 2. The exposure to infor- mation supportive of Nixon is measured by a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agreement with statements indicating a preference for or attention to information supportive of Nixon to 5 for strong dis- agreement with the statements. TABLE 13 Paired t-test on the Exposure to Information Supportive of Nixon Scale at Time 1 and Time 2 Differ- . l-Tailed Time 2 Time 1 ence in t-Value Prob- Mean Mean Means ability Exposure to Information Supportive of Nixon* 2.751 2.647 .1044 1.89 .05 * Exposure to information supportive of Nixon is on a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement ‘with statements indicating a preference and/or attention to support Nixon information. Table 14 indicates that there was a shift away from selective exposure behavior at Time 2. However, because of the small number of individuals represented in some of the cells, the turnover data in Table 14 cannot be relied upon with complete confidence. It is 99 presented here as a gross measure of shifts in attitude. Table 14 shows that the most noticeable shifts occurred in the group that showed a preference for information supportive of Nixon and the group that did not show a preference for this information. Of those who preferred information supportive of Nixon at Time 1, 62 percent shifted to a neutral position and 15 percent did not show a prefer- ence for information supportive of Nixon at Time 2. Also, 60 percent of those who did not show a preference for information supportive of Nixon at Time 2 moved into a neutral attitude position at Time 2. TABLE 14 Turnover Table that Shows the Shift in Selective Exposure to Information Supportive of Nixon at Time 1 and Time 2* N=180 at Time 1 and Time 2 11212.; Preference For Neutral On No Preference For Support Nixon Information Support Nixon Information Preference Information Time 2 n=34 n=114 n=82 Preference For Support Nixon 24% 15% 0% Information n=25 Neutral On Information 62% 65% 59% Preference n=114 No Preference For Support Nixon 15% 20% 41% Information -——- ———— -———— n=41 Total 100% 100% 100% * Selective exposure to information supportive of Nixon is a l-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagree- ment with statements indicating a preference and/or attention to information supportive of Nixon. 100 Demographic Breakdowns Lansing area residents came from diverse backgrounds. Men and women ranging in age from 18 to 65 and older were represented in the survey. Their household incomes ranged from below $1,999 to more than $25,000 a year and the number of years of schooling that they had ranged from a primary education to doctorates or advanced professional training. They identified themselves as being Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Yet, with the exception of politics and education, audience demographics were not good locator variables--variables that can be used to show differences between the groups that make up the mass media audience on the dependent variables. Five analysis of variance F-tests were run on each scale used as a dependent variable in the study to determine whether the differ- ences-~if and when found--were based on the audience demographics of sex, age, income, education and politics. The results show that sex ‘and income--with one exception--were not related to attitudes toward lqixon and the media, selective exposure to information supportive of IN ixon and to the amount of information seeking or to attentiveness to t‘lews content. The one exception—-income--was a good predictor of the s‘Slmount of information seeking at Time 1. Although the information SSeeking level of individuals who made less than $5,000 a year was El‘bout the same as those who made $10,000 to $20,000 a year, the trend Eit Time 1 was for the level of information seeking to increase as Iincome increased. The level of significance of the analysis of 101 variance F—test was .03. The best locator variable was political party identification. There were significant differences among Democrats, Republicans and Independents in their attitudes toward Nixon and the media at Time 1 and Time 2 and in their selective exposure behavior at Time 1. Republicans were just a bit more likely to show a preference for information supportive of Nixon than were Independents and Democrats. The level of significance of the analysis of variance F-test was .02. The mean score of the Republicans on the selective exposure scale was 2.5, compared to 2.7 for Independents and 2.8 for Democrats. The 1-5 scale ranged from 1 for a very strong agreement with statements indi- cating a preference or attention to information supportive of Nixon to 5 for strong disagreement with the statements. This selective exposure broke down at Time 2 during the week that Nixon resigned; there were no significant differences between Republicans, Independents and Democrats. At Time 2, the scores ranged from 2.7 for Republicans and Independents to 2.8 for Democrats. Politics was also a good predictor at Time 2 on a three-item escale developed to tap attitudes on whether Nixon should be punished ifor his part in the Watergate conspiracy. The Democrats were much more likely to feel that Nixon should be punished than were Republi- (zans and Independents. The level of significance of the analysis of \rariance F-test was .000. The Republicans averaged 3.9 on the punish h‘Tixon scale, compared to an average of 2.8 for the Independents and 1:0 an average of 2.6 for the Democrats. The 1-5 scale ranged from 1 for strong agreement with statements that Nixon should be punished 102 to 5 for strong disagreement with the statements. Republicans were much more likely to have more favorable opinions toward Nixon and to feel that the news media were out to get Nixon than were Democrats and Independents. Table 15 shows the mean scores of Democrats, Republicans and Independents on the composite attitude toward Nixon scale and on the news media scale at Time 1 and Time 2. In each case, the level of significance of the analysis of variance F-test was .000. TABLE 15 Means of Democrats, Republicans and Independents on (1) Composite Attitude toward Nixon Scale and (2) Blame the News Media Scale at Time 1 and Time 2 Mean Composite Mean Blame Time Political N Attitude News Media“ Party Toward Nixon Democrats 87 1.8 3.8 11. Republicans 40 3.0 2.7 Independents 98 2.1 3.6 Democrats 79 2.0 4.1 T2 Republicans 51 3.0 3.0 Independents 86 2.1 3.7 3': Nixon composite attitude is on a summated scale of 5 items; each jLtem is on a 1-5 scale where 1 is a very unfavorable attitude toward rqixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. ** Blame media is on a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agree- II'lent to 5 for strong disagreement with statements that the news media were out to get Nixon. 103 Age was a good predictor of attitudes toward Nixon and the amount of information seeking at Time 1. The level of significance of the two analysis of variance F-tests was .002 for the composite attitude toward Nixon scale and .024 for the information seeking scale. Table 16 shows an interesting contradiction. Although those in the 18 to 22 age group were the most negative toward Nixon, they also read, listened to or watched less Watergate-Impeachment stories than other individuals. In addition, a parallel can be drawn between the youngest and the oldest groups interviewed. The senior citizens were like those in the 18 to 22 age group because their attitudes toward Nixon were also more negative although they were exposed to fewer news stories than other individuals. TABLE 16 Means at Time 1 of Individuals in Five Age Groups on (1) Composite Attitude Toward Nixon Scale and (2) Amount of Information Seeking Scale Mean Composite Mean Number Age N Attitude of Toward Nixon* News Stories** 18-21 28 1.9 10.6 22-30 77 1.9 17.2 31-45 42 2.3 16.0 46-64 58 2.5 17.4 65, Over 19 2.2 11.4 * Nixon composite attitude is on a summated scale of 5 items; each item is on a 1-5 scale where l is a very unfavorable atti- tude toward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. *The mean number of stories was computed by multiplying the mean number of categories of news stories read, listened to or watched by respondents by 3--the midpoint of the first category of 1-5 news stories. 104 Education, as expected (McCombs and Mullins, 1973) was a good predictor of information seeking at Time 1 and Time 2. As the number of years individuals spent in school increased, the number of news stories read, listened to or watched and the attentiveness to news content also increased. The level of significance of the analysis of variance F-tests at Time 1 and Time 2 for both information seeking scales was .000. 105 Hypotheses Tests Test of Hypothesis 1 Null Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the mean scores of individuals on the two information seeking scales at Time 1 and Time 2. Alternative Hypothesis 1: The mean scores of individuals on the amount of information seeking scale will be higher at Time 2 than at Time 1 and the mean scores of individuals on the attentiveness to content of news stories scale will be lower at Time 2 than at Time 1. The hypothesis was tested by one-tailed, paired t-tests to determine whether there was a significant difference between the means at Time 1 and Time 2. The hypothesis tests included only the 182 individuals who were interviewed at both Time 1 and Time 2. The null hypothesis was tested and rejected for each of the informa- tion seeking scales--the amount of information seeking scale and the attentiveness to content of news stories--at both Time 1 and Time 2. Table 17 shows that the number of news stories read, listened to or watched on the events leading up to Nixon's resignation and the transfer of power to Ford was significantly higher at Time 2 than the number of news stories read about the Watergate-Impeachment issue at Time 1. Individuals were exposed to an average of 16.4 news stories during one week in July, 1974. A month later during the week that Nixon resigned, this figure went up to an average of 19.3 news stories. The one-tailed probability is .000, meaning that the in- crease is highly significant. Table 17 also shows that the atten- tiveness to the content of news stories was significantly higher at Time 2 than at Time 1. The attention to information seeking scale 106 ranged from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement with statements indicating a high attention level. The mean attention score for individuals went from 2.5 at Time l'to 1.9 at Time 2. The one-tailed probability is also .000 meaning that the increase is highly significant. The results indicate that as the political un- certainty increased with the events leading up to the resignation of Nixon and the transfer of the Presidency to Ford, individuals increased both the number of news stories read, listened to or watched and their attentiveness to the content of the news stories. TABLE 17 Hypothesis 1: Paired t-test on (1) the Amount of Information Seeking at Time 1 and Time 2 and (2) the Attentiveness to the Content of News Stories at Time 1 and Time 2 Differ- ' l-Tailed Time 2 Time 1 ence in t-Value HO Prob- Mean Mean Means ability Amount of Information Seeking-- No. Stories 19.302 16.385 2.918 3.69 Rejected .000 Attention to Infor- mation Seeking* 1.887 2.534 -.647 -11.20 Rejected .ooo Attention is on a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for very high atten- tion to 5 for very low attention. 107 Test of Hypothesis 2 Null Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the mean scores on the two information seeking scales of individuals who are uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached and those who have made up their minds on whether Nixon should be im- peached. Alternative Hypothesis 2: Individuals who are uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached will have (1) a higher mean score on the amount of information seeking scale and (2) a lower mean score on the attentiveness to content of news stories scale than will individuals who have made up their minds on whether Nixon should be impeached. Null Hypothesis 2 was tested by planned comparisons within the framework of a one-way ANOVA. Hypothesis 2 provided for a contrast between individuals uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached and all other individuals. The null hypothesis was tested for each of the information seeking scales--the amount of information seeking scale and the attentiveness to content of news stories scale-~at both Time 1 and Time 2. The null hypothesis was not rejected in three out of the four tests. The only instance in which the null hypothesis of no differences was rejected was at Time 1 in the case of the contrast on the attentiveness to the content of Watergate-Impeachment stories by attitude toward impeach- ment. It must be stressed that although the null hypothesis was rejected, the alternative hypothesis cannot be accepted since it posited a lower mean score for the uncertain group. The significant difference was in the direction opposite to the direction that was hypothesized. In fact, the W was in direction opposite to the hypothesized direction for all of the planned comparisons. 108 Table 18 shows the mean scores on each of the two information seeking scales at Time 1 and Time 2. Individuals who favored Nixon's impeachment read, listened to or watched a larger number of news stories at Time 1 and Time 2 than did individuals who were uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached. These individuals also paid more attention to news stories about the Watergate-Impeachment issue at Time 1 and stories about the events leading up to Nixon's resigna- tion at Time 2 than did individuals who were uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached. TABLE 18 Hypothesis 2: Mean Scores on (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Certainty on Whether Nixon Should Be Impeached and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories by Degree of Certainty on Whether Nixon Should Be Impeached Time 1 Time 2 Mean Mean Mean Atten- Mean Atten- Impeachment No. of tion No. of tion Attitude Groups N Stories Score* N Stories Score* 1=Strongly Favor 60 20 2.1 30 24 1.4 2=Favor 67 17 2.5 94 19 1.9 3=Uncertain 57 13 2.9 58 19 2.0 4=Oppose 28 11 3.1 26 15 2.2 5=Strongly Oppose 14 11 2.9 8 18 2.2 * Attention to news content is on a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for very high attention to 5 for very low attention. 109 The results of the a priori contrasts are shown in Table 19. The uncertainty hypothesis cannot be accepted. Individuals identi- fied as uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached did not read, listen to or watch more news stories and did not pay more attention to the content of these news stories than other individuals. TABLE 19 Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals based on Planned Comparisons for H2: (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Certainty on Whether Nixon Should be Impeached and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories by Degree of Certainty on Whether Nixon Should be Impeached (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Certainty Sig- Time Contrasts 0 HO nifi- 95% Confidence cance Interval “F“?“4m5 ‘ T H - -.653 Not .162 -l.972 v .666 l 3 4 . Rejected M1fl2w4fl5 T2 M3— 4 -.l4l Not .431 -l.734 W 1.453 Rejected (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories* by Degree of Certainty ufufugms T1 03- 4 .319 Rejected .020 .021 1 .617 0 +0 +0 in T2 03- 1 24 4 5 .148 Not .193 .182 1 .478 Rejected * Attention to news content is on a 1-5 Scale, ranging from 1 for very high attention to 5 for very low attention. 110 Test of Hypothesis 3 Null Hypothesis 3: There is no difference in the mean scores on the two information seeking scales of individuals who are very concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment and the mean scores of all other indivi- duals. Alternative Hypothesis 3: Individuals who are very concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeach- ment will have (1) a higher mean score on the amount of infor- mation seeking scale and (2) a lower mean score on the atten- tiveness to content of news stories scale than will all other individuals. Null Hypothesis 3 was tested by planned comparisons within the framework of a one-way ANOVA. Hypothesis 3 provided for a contrast between individuals who identified themselves as being very concerned about how they personally would be affected in terms of their job or their standard of living by Nixon's impeachment at Time 1 and by Nixon's resignation at Time 2 and all other individuals. The null hypothesis was tested for each of the information seeking scales-- the amount of information seeking scale and the attentiveness to content of news stories scale--at both Time 1 and Time 2. The null hypothesis was not rejected in any of the four tests. Table 20 shows the mean scores on each of the two information seeking scales at Time 1 and Time 2. Individuals who were very concerned about how they personally would be affected read, listened to or watched an average of 17 news stories at Time 1. The 17 news stories were one to two stories higher than the average number of news stories read, listened to or watched by each of the other four groups of individuals. Although this difference is not significant, it is in the direction 111 hypothesized. At Time 2, individuals who were very concerned read, listened to or watched 21 news stories. This was higher than for any of the other groups with the exception of the very unconcerned group whose average number of news stories was 23. The mean scores of the attentiveness to content of news stories do not indicate that those who were very concerned paid more attention to the content of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue at Time 1 and the events leading up to Nixon's resignation at Time 2. TABLE 20 Hypothesis 3: Mean Scores on (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Personal Concern and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories by Degree of Personal Concern Time 1 Time 2 Mean ' Mean Mean Atten- Mean Atten- Degree No. of tion No. of tion of Concern N Stories Score* N Stories Score* 1 = Very Concerned 15 17 2.5 18 21 1.9 2 = Concerned 50 16 2.8 53 20 1.8 3 = Neither Concerned nor Unconcerned 55 16 2.6 38 18 2.1 4 = Unconcerned 89 15 2.5 89 18 2.0 5 = Very Unconcerned 17 16 2.5 17 23 1.4 Attention to news content is on a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for very high attention to 5 for very low attention. 112 The results of the a priori contrasts used to test Hypothesis 3 are shown in Table 21. The concern hypothesis cannot be accepted. Individuals who indicated that they were very concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment at Time 1 and about how they personally would be affected by the events leading up to Nixon's resignation and the transfer of power to Ford at Time 2 did not read, listen to or watch more news stories and did not pay more attention to the content of these news stories than other individuals. TABLE 21 Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H3: (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Personal Concern and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories by Degree of Personal Concern w Sig- Time Contrasts i HO nifi- 95% Confidence cance Interval (1) Amount of Information Seeking by Degree of Concern uzm3+u4+us T1 01- 4 .350 Not .836 -3.018 0 3.719 Rejected 112-013$qu T u - .571 Not .680 -2.188 v 3.330 2 1 4 . Rejected (2) Attentiveness to News Story Content by Degree of Concern u in 41» +11 T 0 2 3 4 5 -.140 Not .600 -.675 1 .394 1 l 4 . Rejected u +143+u~4+95 T2 01- 4 .062 Not .828 -.505 w .630 Rejected 113 Test of Hypothesis 4 Null Hypothesis 4: There is no difference in the mean score on the exposure to information supportive of Nixon scale of individuals who are strongly opposed to Nixon's impeachment and the mean score of all other individuals. Alternative Hypothesis 4: The mean score on the exposure to information supportive of Nixon scale of individuals who are strongly opposed to Nixon's impeachment will be lower than the mean score of all other individuals. Null Hypothesis 4A: There is no difference in the mean score on the exposure to information supportive of Nixon scale of individuals who are strongly opposed and opposed to Nixon's impeachment and the mean score of all other individuals. Alternative Hypothesis 4A: The mean score on the exposure to information supportive of Nixon scale of individuals who are strongly opposed and opposed to Nixon's impeachment will be lower than the mean score of all other individuals. Null Hypothesis 4 and Null Hypothesis 4A were tested by planned comparisons within the framework of a one-way ANOVA at both Time 1 and Time 2. Hypothesis 4 provided for a contrast between individuals strongly opposed to Nixon's impeachment and all other individuals and Hypothesis 4A provided for a contrast between individuals who were either strongly opposed or opposed to Nixon's impeachment and all other individuals. Null Hypothesis 4 and Null Hypothesis 4A were rejected for Time 1 and not rejected for Time 2. Table 22 shows the mean scores of individuals on the exposure to information supportive of Nixon scales at Time 1 and Time 2. The selective exposure scale ranges from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement with state- ments indicating a preference for or attention to information suppor- tive of Nixon. At Time 1, individuals strongly opposed to impeachment 114 had an average score of 2.1 and individuals who were either strongly opposed or opposed to impeachment had an average score of 2.3 on the exposure to information supportive of Nixon scale, compared with an average score of 2.8 for individuals who strongly favored the im- peachment of Nixon. At Time 2, individuals strongly opposed to impeachment had an average score of 2.5 and those who were either strongly opposed or opposed had an average score of 2.6 on the selective exposure scale, compared with an average score of 2.7 for individuals who strongly favored the impeachment of Nixon. Although there is no significant difference between the groups at Time 2, the difference is in the hypothesized direction. TABLE 22 Hypothesis 4: Mean Score on Exposure to InfOrmation Supportive of Nixon by Attitude Toward Impeachment Time 1 Time 2 Impeachment Mean Exposure Mean Exposure Attitude Groups to Support Nixon to Support Nixon N Information* N Information* 1 = Strongly Favor 77 2.8 42 2.7 2 = Favor 62 2.7 92 2.8 3 = Neither Favor 50 2.8 57 2.8 nor Oppose 4 = Oppose 25 2.4 18 2.7 5 = Strongly Oppose 12 2.1 7 2.5 * Exposure to information supportive of Nixon is on a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement with statements indicating a preference and/or attention to information supportive of Nixon. 115 The results of the a priori contrasts used to test Hypothesis 4 and Hypothesis 4A are shown in Table 23. The contrasts between indi- viduals strongly opposed to impeachment and all other individuals and between individuals either strongly opposed or opposed and all other individuals were highly significant at the .000 level at Time 1. How- ever, it must be noted here that the finding of significant differences must be conservatively evaluated since the homogeneity of the scale was .37 at Time 1. However, as noted earlier, Cattell (1965) indicated that if a scale works as predicted in a hypothesis test, its use can be justified as the sacrifice of homogeneity to validity. The results indicate that, prior to the time when it became evident that Nixon would have to resign, individuals opposed to Nixon's impeachment selectively exposed themselves to or paid more attention to news stories that presented Nixon's point of view. However, this selective exposure to information supportive of Nixon broke down at Time 2 with the events leading up to Nixon's resignation and the trans- fer of the Presidency to Ford. 116 TABLE 23 Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H4: Exposure to Information Supportive of Nixon by Attitude Toward Impeachment Sig- Time Contrasts W HO nifi- 95% Confidence cance Interval 01812813414 05- 4 -.677 Rejected .000 -1.025 W -.330 T1 H5+H4 H1+HZ+H3 2 -—3—— -.601 Rejected .000 -.839 my -.329 H *0 +M +0 0 - 1 2 3 4 -.163 Not .614 -1.307 1 .764 5 4 . Rejected T2 ”+11 ”411*“ 5 4__1__2___§_ -.271 Not .561 -.702 11 .375 Rejected 117 Test of Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 5A Null Hypothesis 5: There is no difference in the mean scores on the blame the news media scale of individuals who are strongly opposed to Nixon's impeachment and the mean score of other individuals. Alternative Hypothesis 5: The mean score on the blame the news media scale of individuals who are strongly opposed to Nixon's impeachment will be lower than the mean scores of other individ- uals. Null Hypothesis 5A: There is no difference in the mean score on the blame the news media scale of individuals who are strongly opposed and opposed to Nixon's impeachment and the mean score of other individuals. Alternative Hypothesis 5A: The mean score on the blame the news media scale of individuals who are strongly opposed and opposed to Nixon's impeachment will be lower than the mean score of other individuals. Hypothesis 5 and 5A were tested by planned comparisons within the framework of a one-way ANOVA for both Time 1 and Time 2. Hypo- thesis 5 provided for a contrast between individuals strongly opposed to Nixon's impeachment and all other individuals and Hypothesis 5A provided for a contrast between individuals who were either strongly opposed or opposed to Nixon's impeachment and all other individuals. Null Hypothesis 5 and Null Hypothesis 5A were rejected at Time 1 and Time 2. Table 24 shows the mean scores of individuals on the blame the news media scales at Time 1 and Time 2. The scale ranges from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement with statements that the news media were out to get Nixon. The table shows that there is a strong, direct linear relationship between the atti- tude of an individual toward Nixon and his attitude toward the news media. As the attitudes toward Nixon become more negative, the 118 attitudes toward the news media become more positive and vice versa. At Time 1 individuals strongly opposed to impeachment had an average score of 2 and individuals who were either strongly opposed or opposed to Nixon's impeachment had an average score of 2.2 on the blame the news media scale, compared with an average score of 4.2 for individuals who strongly favored the impeachment of Nixon. At Time 2, individuals strongly opposed to impeachment had an average score of 1.5 and those who were either strongly opposed or opposed to impeachment had an average score of 2.5 on the blame the news media scale, compared with an average score of 4.5 for indi- viduals who strongly favored the impeachment of Nixon. TABLE 24 Hypothesis 5 and 5A: Mean Scores on Blame the News Media by Attitude Toward Nixon's Impeachment Time 1 Time 2 Impeachment Blame Media Blame Media Attitude Groups N Mean Score* N Mean Score* 1 = Strongly Favor 77 4.2 42 4.5 2 = Favor 62 3.7 92 3.8 3 = Neither Favor nor Oppose 50 3.3 57 3.6 4 = Oppose 25 2.3 18 2.9 5 = Strongly Oppose 12 2.0 7 1.5 * Blame news media is on a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement with statements that the news media were out to get Nixon. 119 The results of the a priori contrasts used to test Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 5A are shown in Table 25. The contrasts between indi- viduals strongly opposed to impeachment and all other individuals and between individuals either strongly opposed or opposed to impeachment and all other individuals were highly significant at the .000 level at Time 1 and Time 2. The results indicate that individuals opposed to Nixon's impeachment have a kill the messenger philosophy. These indi- viduals reduced their dissonance over the disconsonant messages by blaming the messengers that carried the bad news about the President's involvement in Watergate. TABLE 25 Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H5 and HSA: Blame the News Media by Attitude Toward Nixon's Impeachment Sig- Time Contrasts 0 H0 nifi- 95% Confidence cance Interval win “+0 uS-u 24 -l.654 Rejected .000 -2.280 ¢ -l.028 T1 ”5+“4 ”1+”2+"3 -§-—-- --§--—- -1.895 Rejected .000 -2.267 1 -1.524 M1+HZ+H3+HA us— 4 -2.615 Rejected .000 -3.254 1 -l.975 T2 -2.084 Rejected .000 -2.473 v -1.696 120 Test of Hypothesis 6 and Hypothesis 6A Null Hypothesis 6: There is no difference in the mean score on the attitude toward Nixon scale of individuals who have a very high exposure to information detrimental to Nixon and the mean score of all other individuals. Alternative Hyppthesis 6: The mean score on the attitude to- ward Nixon scale of individuals who have a very high exposure to information detrimental to Nixon will be lower than the mean score of all other individuals. Null Hypothesis 6A: There is no difference in the mean score on the attitude toward Nixon scale of individuals who paid attention to the content of news stories and the mean score of individuals who did not pay attention to the content of news stories. Alternative Hypothesis 6A: The mean score on the attitude to- ward Nixon scale of individuals who paid attention to the content of news stories will be lower than the mean score of individuals who did not pay attention to the content of news stories. Hypothesis 6 and Hypothesis 6A were tested by planned compari- sons within the framework of a one-way ANOVA. Hypothesis 6 provided for a contrast between individuals who have a very high exposure to information detrimental to Nixon and all other individuals. Hypo- thesis 6A provided for a contrast between individuals who paid atten- tion to the content of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue at Time 1 and the events leading up to Nixon's resignation at Time 2 and individuals who did not pay attention to the news stories. Null Hypothesis 6 and Null Hypothesis 6A were rejected. The means of each of the four exposure groups on the composite attitude toward Nixon scale are shown in Table 26 and the means of the two attention groups on the composite attitude toward Nixon scale are shown in 121 Table 27. The composite attitude toward Nixon scale is on a 1-5 scale where l is a very unfavorable attitude toward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. Table 26 shows that Group 4 which had a very high exposure of 57 or more news stories at Time 1 plus Time 2 had the most unfavorable composite attitude toward Nixon at Time 2. Individuals who had a very high exposure to information detrimental to Nixon gave Nixon an average composite rating of 2, compared with 2.3 for those who had a high or moderate exposure to detrimental information and 2.5 for those who had a low exposure to detrimental information. TABLE 26 Hypothesis 6: Mean Scores on Exposure to Information Detrimental to Nixon of All Respondents Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 Mean Composite Exposure Groups Attitude (Time 1 + Time 2) N Toward Nixon at Time 2* 1 = Low Exposure 23 2.5 2 = Moderate Exposure 51 2.3 3 = High Exposure 81 2.3 4 = Very High Exposure 27 2.0 * Nixon composite attitude is on a summated scale of 5 items; each item is on a 1-5 scale where l is a very unfavorable attitude toward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. 122 Table 27 shows that individuals who paid attention to news stories about the Watergate-Impeachment issue at Time 1 and the events leading up to Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Ford at Time 2 had the most unfavorable composite attitude toward Nixon at Time 2. Those who paid attention gave Nixon a composite rating of 2 and those who did not pay attention gave Nixon a composite rating of 2.4. TABLE 27 Hypothesis 6A: Mean Scores on Attentiveness to Content of News Stories of All Respondents Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 Mean Composite Attention Groups Attitude (Time 1 + Time 2) N Toward Nixon at Time 2* Paid Attention 67 2.0 H II N l ‘ Did Not Pay Attention 115 2.4 * Nixon composite attitude is on a summated scale of 5 items; each item is on a 1-5 scale where l is a very unfavorable attitude toward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. 123 Table 28 gives the results of the a priori contrasts on expo- sure by attitude toward Nixon and attention to the content of news stories by attitude toward Nixon. Both contrasts are highly signi- ficant at the .000 level. The results indicate that as exposure to detrimental information about Nixon increased, the attitudes toward Nixon also became more negative. In addition, as attention to the content of news stories containing detrimental information about Nixon increased, the attitudes toward Nixon also became more negative. TABLE 28 Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H6 & H6A: (1) Exposure by Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 Sig- Contrasts 1 HO nifi- 95% Confidence cance Interval (1) Exposure by Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 _ ”1+”2m3 3 -5.672 Rejected .000 -10.746 v -.598 4 (2) Attentiveness to News Story Content by Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 ”1 - 02 -2.368 Rejected .000 -3.486 4 -l.188 124 Test of Hypothesis 7 and Hypothesis 7A Null Hypothesis 7: There is no difference in the mean score on the attitude toward Nixon scale of individuals who are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached and who have a very high exposure to information detrimental to Nixon and the mean score of individuals who also are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached but who had less than a very high exposure to information detri- mental to Nixon. Alternative Hypothesis 7: The mean score on the attitude toward Nixon scale of individuals who are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached and who have a very high exposure to information detrimental to Nixon will be lower than the mean score of individuals who also are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be im- peached but who had less than a very high exposure to informa- tion detrimental to Nixon. Null Hypothesis 7A: There is no difference in the mean score on the attitude toward Nixon scale of individuals who are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached and who paid attention to the content of news stories and the mean score of individuals who also are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached but who did not pay attention to the content of news stories. Alternative Hypothesis 7A: The mean score on the attitude toward Nixon scale of individuals who are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached and who paid atten- tion to the content of news stories will be lower than the mean score of individuals who also are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached but who did not pay attention to the content of news stories. Hypothesis 7 and Hypothesis 7A were tested by planned compari- sons within the framework of a one-way ANOVA. The hypotheses concern only the individuals at Time 1 who were less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached. Included are indi- viduals who strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, and disagreed that Nixon should be impeached. Hypothesis 7 provided for a comparison between individuals who were exposed to 57 or more news stories at Time 1 plus Time 2 and individuals who were exposed to 125 less than 57 news stories at Time 1 plus Time 2. Hypothesis 7A pro- vided for a comparison between individuals who paid attention to the content of news stories and those who did not pay attention. Null Hypothesis 7 and Null Hypothesis 7A were rejected. The means of the four exposure groups on the composite attitude toward Nixon scale are shown in Table 29 and the means of the two attention groups on the composite attitude toward Nixon scale are shown in Table 30. The composite attitude toward Nixon scale is on a l-5 scale where l is a very unfavorable attitude toward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. Table 29 shows that Group 4 which had a very high exposure of 57 or more news stories at Time 1 plus Time 2 had the most unfavorable composite attitude toward Nixon at Time 2. Group 4 individuals gave Nixon a composite attitude rating of 2 as compared with the 2.2 for the high and moderate exposure groups and 2.5 for the low exposure group. TABLE 29 Hypothesis 7: Mean Scores on Exposure to Information Detrimental to Nixon of Respondents Who Were Less Than Strongly Opposed to Nixon's Impeachment Who Were Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 - L Mean Composite Exposure Groups Attitude (Time 1 + Time 2) N Toward Nixon at Time 2* l = Low Exposure 21 2.5 2 = Moderate Exposure 49 2.2 3 = High Exposure 75 2.2 4 = Very High Exposure 27 2.0 * Nixon composite attitude is on a summated scale of 5 items; each item is on a 1-5 scale where l is a very unfavorable attitude toward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. 126 Table 30 shows that individuals who paid attention to the content of news stories at Time 1 plus Time 2 have a more unfavor- able attitude toward Nixon than individuals who did not pay attention. Those who paid attention to news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue and the transfer of Presidential power to Ford gave Nixon a 1.9 rating on the composite attitude toward Nixon scale compared with the 2.4 rating given to Nixon by those who did not pay attention to news stories. TABLE 30 Hypothesis 7A: Mean Scores on Attention to the Content of News Stories of Respondents Who Were Less Than Strongly Opposed to Nixon's Impeachment and Who Were Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 j f Mean Composite Attention Groups Attitude (Time 1 + Time 2) N Toward Nixon at Time 2* H l ‘ Paid Attention 64 1.9 N ll Did Not Pay Attention 108 2.4 * Nixon composite attitude is on a summated scale of 5 items; each item is on a 1-5 scale where l is a very unfavorable attitude toward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. 127 The results of the a priori contrasts on exposure by attitude toward Nixon and attention to content of news stories by attitude toward Nixon are given in Table 31. The exposure contrast is signi- ficant at the .05 level and the attention contrast is highly signi— ficant at the .000 level. The results indicate that--for individuals less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached--as exposure to information detrimental to Nixon increased, attitudes toward Nixon became more negative and as attention to the content of news stories containing detrimental information about Nixon increased, the attitudes toward Nixon also became more negative. TABLE 31 Hypothesis Test and Confidence Intervals Based on Planned Comparisons for H7 and H7A: (1) Exposure of Respondents Less Than Strongly Opposed to Nixon's Impeachment Who Were Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 and (2) Attentiveness to Content of News Stories of Respondents Less Than Strongly Opposed to Nixon's Impeachment Who Were Interviewed at Time 1 and Time 2 by Composite Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 Sig- Contrasts V HO nifi- 95% Confidence cance Interval (1) Exposure by Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 _ 111+H2+H3 4 3 -4.564 Rejected .050 -8.997 V -.l3l (2) Attentiveness to News Story Content by Attitude Toward Nixon at Time 2 ”1 - 02 -2.630 Rejected .000 -3.703 v -1.556 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Statement of Problem and Studnyesigp This study was conducted during the final month of the Nixon administration to examine information seeking behavior during a national political crisis and the effects, if any, this pervasive coverage had on public opinion toward President Nixon and the news media. The questions asked were as follows: What are the information seeking behaviors of the public regarding the Watergate-Impeachment issue: Has the mass media coverage of the revelations on the Watergate-Impeachment issue resulted in changes in attitudes toward Nixon? How are the individuals who oppose impeachment handling the psychological imbalance created by the Watergate-Impeachment issue: (1) are they blaming the messenger that carries the bad news? and (2) are they selectively exposing themselves to information supportive of Nixon? The two-wave panel study was conducted in the Lansing, East Lansing, Okemos and Haslett, Mich., area. The first wave of interviews was conducted from July 10 through July 23, 1974. The press was report- ing information linking Nixon to involvement in the Watergate coverup 128 129 and the battle for the White House tapes was in its final stage during this period. On July 9--the day before the study was put into the field—-the U.S. House Judiciary Committee published its own transcripts of Watergate conversations which differed from the edited transcripts made public by the White House in April. July 24--the day following the first data collection period-- marked the beginning of the end of the Nixon Presidency. On that day, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Nixon must turn over the subpoenaed White House tapes and the Judiciary Committee, which ultimately ap- proved three articles of impeachment, began its historic televised debates on the articles. After Nixon's August 5 admission that he withheld evidence of his role in the Watergate coverup, Nixon's remain- ing support among Republicans in Congress collapsed. The President resigned on August 9 and Ford was sworn in as President. The following day interviewers went back into the field for the second and final wave of interviews that were conducted from August 10 through August 27, 1974. All interviews were personal interviews. Structured questions were used to elicit self-reports by individuals interviewed on their use of the mass media and on their attitudes. The variables of interest in the study were measured by cumulative rating scales that ranked individuals according to their responses to the set of infor- mation seeking or attitude statements that made up each scale. The response rate on the first wave of interviews was 226 or 75 percent of the sample of 300 individuals. The response rate on the second wave was 216 or 72 percent of the sample. Eighty-one percent 130 or 182 of the respondents interviewed at Time 1 were also interviewed at Time 2. The sampling error estimate for variables at Time 1 and at Time 2 ranges from plus or minus 5.4 to plus or minus 6.8 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence, depending primarily upon how the attitudes of those in the sample are split on the variables. The sampling error estimate for an N of 182--for respondents interviewed in both waves--ranges from plus or minus 5.9 to plus or minus 7.8 at the 95 percent level of confidence. Findings: Information Seeking The mass media coverage of the Watergate-Impeachment issue and the events that led to the resignation of Nixon was so extensive and pervasive that there was not a single individual surveyed who had not been exposed to at least one news story at least at one of the two interview periods. The coverage was universal, constant and redundant. The study shows five trends in information seeking: (1) most individuals received their information from.more than one medium, (2) individuals relied more heavily on the media that carried daily information than they did on news magazines, (3) a minority of the individuals who read newspapers or watched television or radio news- casts ignored or avoided Watergate-related stories, (4) most indivi- duals were avid information seekers who paid attention to the content of the stories they were reading, listening to or watching and (5) the most avid information seekers were the newspaper readers. 131 Multiple media and daily media The individuals surveyed relied upon a combination of mass media to provide them with Watergate—related news.~ During one week in July, 62 percent read, listened to or watched a minimum of one to five news stories in at least three of the four mass media. After Nixon's resignation, the reliance on multiple media for information was even greater. Seventy—seven percent surveyed were exposed to a minimum of one to five news stories in at least three media during the week that Nixon resigned. The information seeking behavior following Nixon's resignation can be compared to the information seeking behavior following the shooting of John F. Kennedy. In both cases, active audiences had an insatiable need to know what was happening. They needed surveillance information on the nation's political environment. Like the news of the Kennedy shooting, the news that Nixon had officially announced that he was going to resign was diffused throughout the population very quickly. Greenberg (1964a) reported that nine out of 10 adults heard about the shooting of Kennedy prior to the announcement that he had died. Ninety-six percent of the individuals surveyed knew that Nixon had officially resigned within minutes of his official announcement on television. The more rapid diffusion of the Nixon news can prob- ably be attributed to a reliance on the mass media as a first source of information and to broadcasts earlier in the day that predicted that Nixon would announce his resignation in an evening television address. In the case of the Kennedy shooting, half of the people learned about it from others. 132 Information seeking behavior concerning the resignation an- nouncement can be characterized as the use of multiple media to find out what happened. The finding that, for almost all Lansing area residents, the initial source of information was television replicates the Sohn (1975) finding. Of the 86 percent who heard Nixon's televi- sion speech, 67 percent of these individuals also read about the resignation in their newspapers the following day. Mass media behavior was similar the next day when President Ford took his oath of office. However, because the oath taking ceremony took place on a Friday noon when most people were at work, more individuals read about the oath taking in their newspapers than watched it on television. Fifty-eight percent watched the transfer of Presidential power on television and 14 percent listened to it on radio. Seventy percent read about the brief ceremony in their newspapers that afternoon or the next morning. Respondents relied heavily on the daily media of television, newspapers and radio for their information on Watergate and Nixon's resignation. Television news broadcasts were the largest single source of information. At Time 1, a greater number of individuals listened to Watergate stories on the radio than read them in news- papers. But, this changed at Time 2 when newspapers became the second largest source of information about the President's resignation. The weekly news magazines came in fourth at Time 1 and Time 2 with a lower readership than any of the three media that provided daily informa- tion about the events. During one week in July, 76 percent of the individuals surveyed watched Watergate stories on television newscasts, 66 percent listened 133 to stories on radio newscasts, 65 percent read stories in newspapers and 42 percent read stories in news magazines. Information seeking increased during the week that Nixon resigned. Eighty-nine percent watched stories about the events that resulted in Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Ford on television, 81 percent read newspaper stories, 70 percent listened to radio news stories and 32 percent read stories in news magazines. Attention, avoidance and the avid newspaper seeker The study shows that most individuals were not passive infor- mation seekers. As McGuire (1974) noted, persistent exposure to information cannot be viewed as mere continuation of a chance habit of tuning in or reading of what happens to be available. The individuals surveyed at Time 1 and Time 2 were avid information seekers. They read, listened to or watched an average of 16.4 stories during one week in July and 19.3 stories during the resignation week. They also paid attention to Watergate-related stories. They averaged 2.5 on an attentiveness to content scale at Time 1 and averaged 1.9 on the same scale at Time 2. The scale ranged from 1 for very high attention to 5 for very low attention. Most individuals were avid information seekers. However, this is not to say that the more than two years of Watergate news did not prompt a minority to avoid Watergate-Impeachment information during this final month of the political crisis. This study does not provide an explanation of why a few individuals reported that they avoided Watergate information. However, it can be hypothesized that they 134 avoided it because they had made up their minds about Watergate, were tired of the news or because they supported Nixon and were trying to avoid discrepant information. At Time 1, 23 percent of those who listened to radio newscasts, 19 percent of the newspaper readers, 15 percent of those who watched television newscasts and 6 percent of those who read news magazines reported that they avoided information about Watergate. But, the situation changed at Time 2 when only 8 percent of those who listened to radio newscasts, 5 percent of those who watched television news- casts, 5 percent of the newspaper readers and 3 percent of the news magazine readers ignored or avoided information about the events that led to Nixon's resignation. An explanation for this increase in information seeking behavior among those who avoided Watergate infor- mation at Time 1 is that as the political uncertainty increased, their information seeking behavior also increased. The most avid information seekers were those who read news- papers. The individuals who read newspaper stories on the Watergate- Impeachment events read an average of 7.9 stories at Time 1 and an average of 9 stories at Time 2. In comparison, individuals who watched Watergate news stories on television watched an average of 5.7 stories at Time 1 and 5.8 stories at Time 2. Newspaper readers not only read more stories about the Watergate-related events, but they were also likely to search for these stories in more than one newspaper. 'More than half of those who read Watergate-Impeachment stories in newspapers read more than one newspaper. 135 Other sources of Watergate-related information Lansing area residents received information about the Watergate revelations from sources other than news stories in the four mass media. These sources included special televised programming, special- ized publications and interpersonal communication. Seventy-three percent reported that they watched at least one to four hours of the House Judiciary Committee televised impeachment debates that took place between the two waves of interviews. A small percentage of individuals received Watergate information from one or more of the following specialized publications: church, union, American Legion, Republican party, Democratic party and other publica- tions. Lansing area individuals also talked about the Watergate revelations. At Time 1, 82 percent talked to friends about news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue and at Time 2, 75 percent talked to friends about news stories on Nixon's resignation. Findings: Change Over Time Significant changes in attitudes toward President Nixon and the news media and in selective exposure behavior occurred during Nixon's last month in office. The composite attitude rating of individuals toward President Nixon at Time 1 prior to the historic televised House Judiciary Com- mittee impeachment debates and immediately after Nixon's resignation shows two trends. Attitudes toward Nixon were slightly more negative in August than they were in July. However, 70 percent of the respon- dents who had formed their opinions of Nixon prior to the televised 136 impeachment debates stuck to those same opinions through the period following Nixon's resignation. Of those who did change their attitudes toward Nixon from Time 1 to Time 2, individuals who were more neutral toward Nixon at Time 1 were more likely to change their attitudes toward Nixon than were those who were either for or against him. Individuals also reacted to the messenger who was bringing the bad news about Nixon's involvement in Watergate. The study shows two trends in the blame the media phenomenon. A majority of the individ- uals did not blame the news media for their role in reporting the Watergate revelations. However, a small core of individuals did blame the news media. The second trend is that individuals were less likely to blame the news media at Time 2 then they were at Time 1. Many of the individuals who blamed the news media or were neutral toward the media at Time 1 shifted their attitudes, moving toward the viewpoint at Time 2 that the media were not out to get Nixon. A small core of individuals showed a preference for information supportive of Nixon during the final days of the Nixon Presidency. Of the individuals interviewed in both waves, 19 percent at Time 1 and 13 percent at Time 2 indicated that they listened to, paid attention to or preferred information on Nixon's side of the story. At Time 2, there was a shift away from selective exposure. Findings: Demographic Breakdowns With the exception of politics and education, audience demo- graphics were not good predictors of information seeking or attitudes. The best locator variable was political party identification. There 137 were significant differences among Democrats, Republicans and Inde- pendents in their attitudes toward Nixon and the media at Time 1 and Time 2 and in their selective exposure behavior at Time 1. Republicans were much more likely to have more favorable attitudes toward Nixon, unfavorable attitudes toward Nixon and to selectively expose themselves to information supportive of Nixon than were Independents and Democrats. Education was a good predictor of information seeking at Time 1 and Time 2. As the number of years spent in school increased, the number of news stories read, listened to or watched and the attentive- ness to the content of news stories also increased. Age was a good predictor of attitudes toward Nixon and the amount of information seeking at Time 1. Although individuals 18 to 22 years of age and those over 65 had attitudes that were more negative toward Nixon than other individuals, both groups were exposed to fewer news stories than other individuals. Findings: Hypotheses Tests Hypothesis 1: If the news media report that Nixon's impeach- ment is imminent, individuals will increase their information seeking behavior. The data provide support for this hypothesis. Individuals read, listened to or watched more news stories on the events leading up to Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Ford than they read, listened to or watched on the Watergate-Impeachment issue at Time 1. Individuals were exposed to an average of 16.4 news stories during one week in July, compared with an average of 19.3 news stories a month later during the week that Nixon resigned. Individuals 138 also paid more attention to the news stories at Time 2 than they did at Time 1. The mean attention score went from 2.5 at Time 1 to 1.9 at Time 2. The attention scale ranged from 1 for very high attention to 5 for very low attention. The increases in the amount of information seeking and the attentiveness to the content of the news stories were both highly significant at the .000 level. This lends support to the theoretical hypothesis that the information search increases systematically with the degree of uncertainty. As the political uncertainty increased with the events leading up to Nixon's resignation, individuals in- \creased both their amount of information seeking and their attention to the content of the news stories. Hypothesis 2: If individuals are uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached, they will engage in more information seek- ing behavior than will individuals who have made up their minds on the issue. A This hypothesis was not supported. There is no evidence to believe that during the last month of Watergate, individuals who were uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached went to the media for guidance information on which to base a decision on impeachment. There are two possible explanations for the failure to provide support for the theoretical hypothesis that uncertainty creates a need for guidance information. Individuals who identified themselves as being uncertain may have been those who-~after the more than two- year onslaught of information about Watergate--had decided to cate- gorize themselves as being uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached because they could neither support Nixon nor bring themselves 139 to turn against him. Secondly, the measure for individuals who were uncertain about whether Nixon should be impeached may also have tapped individuals who didn't care one way or the other. Hypothesis 3: If individuals are concerned about how they personally would be affected by Nixon's impeachment, they will engage in more information seeking behavior than will individuals who are not as concerned. This hypothesis was not supported. There is no evidence to believe that during the last month of Watergate, individuals who were personally concerned about how they would be affected by Nixon's im- peachment would engage in more information seeking. This finding of no significant difference is related to a finding in an agenda-setting study on Watergate by McCombs and McLeod (1975). They found that students who selected Watergate as the issue they most often discussed said they did so because it was in the news at the time and not because it was the most important issue to them personally. The researchers suggested that the media's agenda may be even stronger on discussion salience than on personal salience. In the case of Watergate, it may very well be that individuals were maintaining surveillance over potential changes in the political environment out of a pragmatic necessity to become knowledgeable about something that is being talked about, rather than because of possible personal consequences. A second explanation for the failure to support the personal concern theoretical hypothesis may be that although individuals reported they were personally concerned about Watergate, this personal concern was philosophically removed from the more personal concerns that directly affect an individual and his family. 140 Hypothesis 4: If individuals believe Nixon should not be impeached, they will be exposed to a greater amount of information supportive of that position than will indi- viduals who believe he should be impeached. The data provide support for this hypothesis at Time 1, but not at Time 2. At Time 1, individuals who were against Nixon's impeachment had an average score of 2.3 on the selective exposure scale, compared with an average score of 2.8 for those who favored the impeachment of Nixon. At Time 2, individuals who were against Nixon's impeachment had an average score of 2.6 on the selective exposure scale, compared with an average score of 2.8 for those who favored his impeachment. The scale ranged from 1 for strong agree- ment to 5 for strong disagreement with statements indicating a preference for or attention to information supportive of Nixon. Prior to the time when it became evident that Nixon would have to resign, individuals opposed to his impeachment were more likely to selectively expose themselves to information supportive of Nixon than were other individuals. This finding was highly significant at the .000 level. However, this selective exposure broke down at Time 2 with the reporting of the events during the week that Nixon resigned. The situation had changed from one in which the media were the messengers of only bad news to one in which the messengers were bring- ing information about the transfer of Presidential power, an event that created national political uncertainty resulting in a systematic increase in information seeking by all individuals. 141 Hypothesis 5: If individuals are opposed to Nixon's impeachment, they are more likely to blame the news media than will other individuals. The data support this hypothesis at both Time 1 and Time 2. There was a direct, strong linear relationship between the attitude of an individual toward Nixon and his attitude toward the news media. As the attitudes toward Nixon became more negative, the attitudes toward the news media became more positive and vice versa. At Time 1, individuals who were against Nixon's impeachment had an average score of 2.2 on the blame the news media scale, compared with an average score of 4 for those who favored Nixon's impeachment. At Time 2, individuals who were against Nixon's impeachment had an average score of 2.5 on the blame the news media scale, compared with an average score of 4 for those who favored Nixon's impeachment. These findings were highly significant at the .000 level of significance. The results show that individuals do have a kill the messenger philosophy. Individuals opposed to Nixon's impeachment maintained their psychological balance by blaming the messengers that carried the bad news about the President's involvement in Watergate. Hypothesis 6: The more individuals are exposed to or pay attention to information detrimental to Nixon on the Watergate-Impeachment issue, the more their attitudes to- ward Nixon will move in the same direction. The data support this hypothesis. There is a direct relation- ship between the amount of exposure to Watergate-Impeachment informa- tion at Time 1 and Time 2 and an individual's attitude toward Nixon at Time 2. Individuals who had a very high exposure to information detrimental to Nixon during one week in July and during the resignation 142 week gave Nixon a composite attitude rating of 2, compared with an average of 2.5 for individuals who had a low exposure to information detrimental to Nixon. In addition, individuals who reported that they paid attention to the content of news stories at Time 1 and Time 2 gave Nixon an average composite rating of 2.0, compared with the 2.4 composite rating given to Nixon by individuals who did not pay attention to the news stories. The Nixon composite attitude scale ranged from 1 for a very favorable attitude to 5 for a very unfavorable attitude. These findings were highly significant at the .000 level. The results provide evidence of a direct relationship between information seeking and attitude. As exposure to and attention to information detrimental to Nixon increased, the attitudes toward Nixon became more negative. Hypothesis 7: The more individuals who are less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached are exposed to or pay attention to information detrimental to Nixon on the Watergate-Impeachment issue, the more their atti- tudes toward Nixon will move in that same direction. The data support this hypothesis which concerned only the individuals at Time 1 who were less than strongly committed to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached. Individuals who had a very high exposure to information detrimental to Nixon at Time 1 and Time 2 gave Nixon a composite attitude rating of 2, compared with a composite attitude rating of 2.5 given to Nixon by individuals who had a low exposure to information detrimental to Nixon. This result also held for attention given to the Watergate-Impeachment information detri- mental to Nixon. Individuals who paid attention to the information 143 at Time 1 and Time 2 gave Nixon a composite attitude rating of 1.9, compared with a composite attitude rating of 2.4 given to Nixon by individuals who did not pay attention. The exposure finding was sig- nificant at the .05 level and the attention finding was highly signi- ficant at the .000 level. The results provide evidence of a direct relationship between information seeking and attitude for individuals less than strongly committed at Time 1 to the viewpoint that Nixon should be impeached. As exposure and attention to information detrimental to Nixon increased, attitudes of these individuals became more negative. Limitations of Research 1. With the exception of education, the demographics of the sample closely approximate the demographics of the population in Lansing, East Lansing and Okemos. This allows generalizations to be made about the population based on the sample results. To the extent that education affects the variables of interest, the study results cannot be generalized to the Lansing area. In addition, the study results cannot be generalized to the national level. However, the primary purpose of this study was to test theoretical propositions. 2. The results of the test for Hypothesis 4, which were highly significant at the .000 level and which indicated that indi- viduals opposed to Nixon's impeachment were selectively exposed to information supportive of Nixon, must be conservatively evaluated since the homogeneity of the scale was only .37 at Time 1. However, Cattell (1965) indicated that if a scale works as predicted in a hypothesis test, its use can be justified as the sacrifice of 144 homogeneity to validity. 3. The sample size was not large enough to allow for a deci- sive analysis of individuals who changed their attitudes toward Nixon and the news media and who changed their selective exposure behavior. The turnover tables presented in the findings sections provide only gross measures of the changers. Conclusions and Implications for Further Research This study provides a portrait of Lansing area residents actively seeking information on Watergate, especially when the national political crisis climaxed in the resignation of a President. Overall, during the last month in office, attitudes toward Nixon showed further erosion. At the end, although the attitudes of some softened toward the man who was facing a personal crisis, 56 percent of the individuals surveyed felt that Nixon's resignation was not punishment enough and that he should be prosecuted on the charges made against him. The media, which took on a President who had won the 1972 election by a 60 percent vote, did not emerge from the Watergate ordeal unscathed. Despite the evidence of Nixon's involvement in Watergate carried by the media, a small core of individuals--mostly Republicans-- who believed that Nixon was not guilty of an impeachable offense main- tained their psychological balance by blaming the news media and selectively exposing themselves to information supportive of Nixon. This study supports the generalizations provided by Klapper (1960). Klapper noted that when mass media do function in the service 145 of change, the mediating factors are found to be inoperative or them- selves impelling toward change. In this case, the media, which were all carrying the same message, did not act to socially reinforce the status quo. Also, since many of the individuals reported negative attitudes toward Nixon at Time 1, a Nixon holdout could hardly rely on interpersonal communication as a mediating factor favoring rein- forcement of his opinion. The only options left open to him were atti- tude change or the psychological balance defenses of selective exposure and source derogation. This study shows that the psychological de- fenses were used by individuals who opposed Nixon's impeachment. The earlier Watergate studies discussed in Chapter II also support the Klapper generalizations. But, the trouble is that the Watergate studies support different generalizations, depending upon when they were conducted. The early Watergate studies--as most effects studies--found reinforcement of attitudes to be the dominant effect of the Watergate coverage. The studies conducted during the Watergate Senate hearings found minor changes in opinions. Although Democrats and Independents changed their opinions about Nixon, deep changes in public opinion had not occurred by late summer of 1973. These different results at different points in time graphically illustrate some shortcomings of the Klapper generalizations which were based primarily on one-shot studies plus a few short-term panel studies. The limited effects model, which pinpoints the conditions necessary for attitude change to occur, does not account for the process of attitude change over time. The collection of Watergate studies cited in this study shows that attitude change-~though slow--is a dynamic process. 146 First, there is cognitive change and then there is affective attitude change. The Davis, Kraus and Lee (1975) model of attitude change, which is based on the analysis of critical events, appears to be more appropriate in situations of national political crisis such as Water- gate when there is continuous, pervasive and redundant media content based on these critical events. Their model should provide a useful starting point for research. This study suggests the model would be more viable if elements of the Klapper model were integrated into their framework. The model of the process of public opinion should take into account the psychological balance theories such as selec- tive exposure and source derogation that prove to be barriers to cognitive change and ultimately to affective attitude change. An ideal research strategy would be one of longitudinal study of uses and gratifications and media effects of at least two years duration. Such a study would be conducted within an agenda setting framework to determine the cognitive inputs of the media on an important, national issue. The study would examine the long-term cognitive change and the media content that contribute to change in orientation toward political figures and the media itself. A major contribution of this study to the literature on mass communication is the empirical documentation of the kill the messenger philosophy in a field study conducted during a national political crisis. However, there needs to be further research done in this area. The process of cognitive and finally affective attitude change toward the news media needs to be examined. 147 The results of a factor analysis of attitudinal variables at Time 1 showed that attitudes toward the adversaries in the Watergate ordeal-~Nixon and the media--1oaded on one factor. However, they loaded on separate factors at Time 2. This suggests that individuals did not distinguish between the roles of the adversaries in the crisis and saw both as the source of psychological discomfort until the crisis was resolved. Robinson (1972, 1974) has suggested that the character- istic outcome of institutional conflict is distrust of both sides. A study conducted during a period of political crisis could be designed to test the following hypotheses: l. The awareness of an adversary relationship between the press and a political figure or institution produces psychological discomfort among audience members until the crisis is resolved. 2. If the press is ultimately believed, all but a small core of diehards who support the political figure or institution will view the press as doing the country a public service. 3. If the press is not believed and persists in its attack on the political figure or institution, a majority of the audience will blame the news media. In conclusion, the study results suggest that the media did have a direct effect on Lansing area residents. But, the effects were not the direct effects that are suggested by the hypodermic needle model in which effects are equated with exposure. Rather, the effects of the media must be thought of as agenda setting effects in which the media made people aware of the extent of the Watergate 148 coverup. The resulting information brought about a change in cogni- tions which, over a two-year period, ultimately resulted in affective attitude change on the part of the Lansing area public, most of whom supported Nixon in 1972. The study indicates that the role of the press as messenger, as well as the role of the President in the Water- gate affair, was under careful scrutiny by the public. In the case of Watergate, one shudders to think what might have been the outcome if Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein would have been wrong. Or, if the Washington Post had backed away from the story. Or, if Judge Sirica had not insisted on the truth. Or, if Alexander Butterfield had not revealed the existence of the White House tapes. There is no telling what repressive measures an angered Nixon adminis- tration--backed up by negative opinion against the press-~would have been able to establish by Executive Order or to push through Congress. As it turned out, the press emerged as the victor in the Watergate ordeal, but not without damage to its credibility. It must be kept in mind that every time the press takes on a respected politi- cal figure or institution, it does not do so without a loss in its own credibility (Robinson, 1972, 1974). And, as Davis, Kraus and Lee. (1975) suggest, media credibility is event specific, meaning that individuals will judge media credibility on new issues according to their own predispositions. Nothing much has changed since the days in ancient Persia when the messengers of bad tidings were killed. APPENDICES APPENDIX A WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY I INTRODUCTION TO WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY I Good Afternoon (Or Evening) . I'm , a (Year in School) at Michigan State. I'm working on a class project to find out the opinions of Lansing area residents on Watergate. (IF SOMEONE UNDER AGE 18 ANSWERS THE DOOR OR IF YOU NEED TO INTERVIEW SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX, ASK:) Is the man (or lady) of the house at home? (REPEAT THE ABOVE INTRODUCTION WHEN HE OR SHE COMES TO THE DOOR.) I have a letter from the project directors that I would like you to read. (HAND THE LETTER TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVE HIM A FEW MOMENTS TO LOOK IT OVER.) I would like to ask you a few questions about Watergate-- it will only take about 15 minutes. (IF THE INDIVIDUAL SAYS HE DOESN'T HAVE TIME TO BE INTERVIEWED, DO YOUR BEST TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW AT A TIME THAT IS CONVENIENT FOR HIM.) 149 APPENDIX A INTE RV IEWER WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY I Column ( ) (CODE INTERVIEW NUMBER) (CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE ANSWERS THAT CORRESPOND TO YOUR INTER- VIEWEE'S RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS. TO YOU ARE IN ALL CAPS TYPE. DO NOT READ OUT LOUD. Do you talk with friends about the things that are going on in Washington? ( l ) Yes ( 2 ) No Do you talk with friends about news stories on the Watergate- Impeachment issue? ( l ) Yes ( 2 ) No Did you have the chance to read any newspapers during the past week? ( l ) Yes ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP THE NEXT PAGE TO QUESTION 6.) 150 ALSO,yNOTE THAT INSTRUCTIONS 151 Column 4. Which newspapers did you have a chance to read during the past week? (CIRCLE THE NUMBERS OF THE NEWSPAPERS THAT YOUR INTER- VIEWEE SAYS HE HAS READ AND THEN ASK HIM THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.) Did you also have the chance to read any of these newspapers? (READ THE NAMES OF THE NEWSPAPERS THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE DID NOT MENTION AND CIRCLE THE NUMBERS OF THE ADDITIONAL NEWS- PAPERS THAT HE SAYS HE HAS READ.) (_l_) Lansing State Journal (_2_) Detroit Free Press (;3_) Detroit News (_4;) M30 State News ( 5 ) (WRITE IN THE NAMES OF ( 5 ) ALL OTHER NEWSPAPERS THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE ( 5 ) SAYS HE HAS READ.) 5. (WRITE IN THE CHART BELOW THE NUMBERS AND NAMES OF ALL THE NEWSPAPERS THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE HAS READ. FOR EACH NEWS- PAPER ASK QUESTION A AND IF THE ANSWER IS "YES," THEN ALSO ASK QUESTION B. IN QUESTION B, IF YOUR INTERVIEWEECANNOT REMEMBER HOW MANY STORIES HE HAS READ, THEN READ HIM THE CATEGORIES. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION A IS "NO," THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT NEWSPAPER.) A. Did you read any stories related to the Watergate- Impeachment issue in the (NAME OF THE NEWSPAPER) during the past week? B. About how many stories would you say you read? A. Watergate- Newspapers Read Impeachment B. Number of Stories Read? Stories? (1) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 7-8-9 (_1_) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (_2) 6-10 (g) Over 10 10-11-12 (1) Yes (_2) No (1) 1-5 (g) 6-10 (g) Over 10 13-14-15 (1) Yes (_2) No (_1_) 1-5 (g) 6-10 (g) Over 10 16-17-18 (1) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 19-20-21 10. 11. 12. 152 Column Did you have a chance to listen to any radio news broad- casts during the past week? 22 No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 9.) Did you have a chance to listen to any radio news broad- casts during the past week that included stories related to the Watergate-Impeachment issue? 23 No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 9.) About how many radio news stories on the Watergate- Impeachment issue did you listen to during the past week? 24 ( l ) One to five ( 2 ) Six to ten ( 3 ) Eleven or More (IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE SAYS HE CAN'T REMEMBER, THEN READ HIM THE ABOVE CATEGORIES.) Did you have a chance to watch any television news broad- casts during the past week? 25 No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 12.) Did you have a chance to watch any television news broad- casts that included stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue during the past week? 26 AA 1 ) Yes ) No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 12.) About how many television news stories on the Watergate- Impeachment issue did you watch during the past week? 27 ( 1 ) One to five (2) Six to ten (3) Eleven or More (IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE SAYS HE CAN'T REMEMBER, THEN READ HIM THE ABOVE CATEGORIES.) Did you have a chance to read any news magazines during the past month? 28 ( l ) Yes ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 15.) 153 Column 13. Which news magazines did you have a chance to read during the past month? (CIRCLE THE NUMBERS OF THE NEWS MAGAZINES THAT YOUR INTER- VIEWEE SAYS HE HAS READ AND THEN ASK HIM THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.) Did you also have the chance to read any of these news magazines? (READ THE NAMES OF THE NEWS MAGAZINES THAT YOUR INTER- VIEWEE DID NOT MENTION AND CIRCLE THE NUMBERS OF THE ADDITIONAL NEWS MAGAZINES THAT HE SAYS HE HAS READ.) ( l ) Time ( 2 ) Newsweek ( 3 ) U.S. News & World Report 14. (WRITE IN THE CHART BELOW THE NAMES OF ALL THE NEWS MAGAZINES THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE HAS READ. FOR EACH NEWS MAGAZINE, ASK QUESTION A AND IF THE ANSWER IS "YES," THEN ALSO ASK QUESTION B. IN QUESTION B, IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE CANNOT REMEMBER HOW MANY STORIES HE HAS READ, THEN READ HIM THE CATEGORIES. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION A 18 "N0," THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT NEWS MAGAZINE.) A. Did you read any stories related to the watergate- Impeachment issue in (NAME OF THE MAGAZINE) during the past month? B. About how many stories would you say you read? A. Watergate- News Magazines Impeachment B. Number of Stories Read? Read Stories? (1) Yes (g) No (1) 1-5 (g) 6-10 (g) Over 10 29-30-31 (1) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 32-33-34 (1) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 35-36-37 154 99111912. 15. I'm going to read a list of publications. I want to know if any of them have provided you with information on the Watergate-Impeachment issue? Church publications? (_1_) Yes (_2_) No 38 Union publications? (_1_) Yes (_2_) No 39 American Legion publications? (_1_) Yes (_2_) No 40 Republican party publications? (_1_) Yes (_2_) No 41 Democratic party publications? (_1_) Yes (_2_) No 42 Other publications? (1 ) Yes (_2_) No 43 (IF THE ANSWER TO OTHER PUBLICATIONS 18 "YES," ASK THE INTERVIEWEE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.) . Which ones? I'm handing you a card that has five things written on it-- strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and strongly disagree. I'm going to read you a list of statements and I want you to tell me which of the things best fits your own opinion about each statement. On the top of the card there is an attitude scale. If you have no feeling one way or the other about a statement, you would be in the middle of the scale where it says "neither agree nor disagree. If you have strong feelings about the statement, your feelings would be at either end of the scale and you would either "agree strongly" or "disagree strongly." However, if your feelings about a statement are not that strong, then you would simply say that you agree or dis- agree with the statement. Now, I will read you the statements: 16. The U.S. House of Representatives(_1_) Strongly agree 44 should impeach President Nixon. (_2_) Agree (_3_) Neither agree nor disagree (;4_) Disagree (_5_) Strongly disagree 17. I was shocked when I found out (_1_) Strongly agree 45 from reports about the Water- (_2_) Agree gate tapes that President (_3_) Neither agree Nixon swears a lot. nor disagree (;4_) Disagree (_5_) Strongly disagree 18. I was upset when I found out (_1_) Strongly agree 46 that President Nixon owed about (_2_) Agree $500,000 in back taxes and (_3_) Neither agree interest. nor disagree LjL) Disagree (_2_) Strongly disagree 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. I do not listen to broadcasts by President Nixon when he explains his side of the Watergate-Impeachment issue. Watergate is the worst scandal in our history. I read a newspaper because I'm interested in finding out the latest news on the Watergate- Impeachment issue. President Nixon Should not be impeached because he hasn't done anything that could be considered grounds for impeachment. It is hard to get away from information about the Watergate-Impeachment issue because the news media are devoting so much time and space to it. The news media are out to get President Nixon. Watergate reveals corruption in the Nixon administration. AA AA LnI-L‘ plNIH vv vvv A AA A A lb [SlNll—l ml-D I’QNU‘ VVV VV VVV A U! vv A AA vvv A AA A VVV VV AA A p gel... I“ vv vvv VV Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 155 Column 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 156 Column 265. I listen to a newscast because Q_L_) Strongly agree 54 I'm interested in finding out (_g_) Agree the latest news on the (4;_) Neither agree Watergate-Impeachment issue. nor disagree g;g_ Disagree ) ( 5 ) Strongly disagree I'm handing you a second card for you to look at to answer the next question. 27. Generally speaking, do you support President Nixon at this 55 point in time? Which of the following statements best indicates how'you feel? (_1_) I strongly support him. (_g_) I support him. (_2_) I neither support nor am against him. CJ§_) I am against him. Q___) I am.strongly against him. Here's a third card for you to look at to answer this question. 28. Did you support President Nixon before the 1972 presidential 56 election? Which of the following statements best indicate whether you were a Nixon supporter two years ago? ( l ) I strongly supported Nixon's re-election in 1972. ( 2 ) I supported Nixon's re-election in 1972. (_3_ neither supported Nixon's re-election nor was against his re-election in 1972. I I I was against Nixon's re-election in 1972. I ( 4 ) ( 5 ) was strongly against Nixon's re-election in 1972. 29. How do you rate President Nixon's performance in foreign 57 affairs? ( l ) Excellent ( 2 ) Good ( 3 ) Neither good nor poor ( 4 ) Poor ( 5 ) Terrible 157 Column :30. How do you rate President Nixon's overall performance 58 as President? Excellent (_1_) (__2_) Good (_§_) Neither good nor poor (:3_) Poor ( 5 ) Terrible ‘Here's another card. Look at it to answer the next two questions. 31. Generally speaking, are you concerned about how the country 59 is being affected by the Watergate-Impeachment issue? (_1_) Very concerned g;;_) Concerned (_2_) Neither concerned nor unconcerned (_&_) Unconcerned (_5_) Very unconcerned 32. Generally speaking, are you concerned about how you would 60 personally be affected if Nixon were impeached? By per- sonally affected, I mean would it affect your job or your standard of living? (;l_) Very concerned Q_g_) Concerned Q;;_) Neither concerned nor unconcerned g;g_) Unconcerned ( 5 ) Very unconcerned Now, refer back to the card I gave you a few minutes ago. I'm going to give you a few more statements. Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with them. The :33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. statements are: The news media have not been fair in their coverage of the Watergate-Impeachment issue. I pay attention to news stories in which someone on President Nixon's staff explains the President's position on some aspect of the Watergate- Impeachment issue. When I read news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue, I don't pay careful attention to them. The news media have done the country a great service by reporting on the Watergate— Impeachment issue. I avoid reading news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. The news media have blown the Watergate—Impeachment issue way out of proportion. I prefer to listen to news broadcasts that support President Nixon on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. A A A I. lam. VVV A IUI vv A AA pl» [:Mt. vvv H N vvv AA VV AA A Mr [Sgt VV vvv A A lb [SI/ISIH VVV A U1 l... AAA W'N U1 AA lb VV AAA 4.x lwlmlo—I vvv A U1 v Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree ) Strongly disagree 158 Column 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ZIO. 41. 42. 159 Column I keep up on what is happen- {___) Strongly agree 68 ing on the Watergate-Impeachment (___) Agree issue because I don't want to (___) Neither agree miss out on new information. nor disagree g__) Disagree (___) Strongly disagree The news media have been accurate (___) Strongly agree 69 in their coverage Of the (___) Agree Watergate-Impeachment issue. (___) Neither agree nor disagree (___) Disagree (___) Strongly disagree I'm tired of news stories on the (___ Strongly agree 70 ) Watergate-Impeachment issue. ) Agree ) Neither agree nor disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly disagree we're almost through now. But I have a few more questions about yourself that I want to ask you. 43. (READ QUESTION 43A IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE IS MALE OR QUESTION 433 IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE IS FEMALE. FILL IN THE BLANKS BY READING THE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS FROM YOUR INTERVIEW LIST. MAKE ANY NECESSARY CORRECTIONS.) Let's see. Your name is . Your address is Your phone number is . Is that correct? Let's see. Your name is ers., Miss or Ms.) What is your first name? Your address is And your phone number is Is that correct? (IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE WANTS TO KNOW WHY YOU WANT THIS INFORMATION, TELL HIM THE FOLLOWING: "WE NEED THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WE WILL BE CONTACTING YOU AGAIN IN A FEW'MONTHS ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON THE DEBATE IN CONGRESS ON THE WATERCATE-IMPEACHMENT ISSUE.") 44. 45. 46. 47. 160 Column What is your occupation? 71 Please describe your job. What specifically do you do? What is your age? 72 ( 1 ) 18-21 ( 2 ) 22-30 ( 3 ) 31-45 ( 4 ) 46-64 ( 5 ) 65 or Older What is your political party preference? 73 ( l ) Democrat ( 2 ) Republican ( 3 ) Independent ( 4 ) Other (IF OTHER, ASK YOUR INTERVIEWEE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.) Can you be more specific? How much schooling have you had? 74 ( l ) Elementary Education ( 2 ) Junior High School ( 3 ) Some High School ( 4 ) High School Graduate ( 5 ) Some College ( 6 ) College Graduate ( 7 ) Graduate School or Professional Work 161 Column (#8. I'm handing you a card that has income categories 75 lettered from A through G. Please give me the letter that best fits your household's total income. This includes everybody in your household who lives at home and brings home a paycheck. (_1_) A--Under $1,999 (_g_) B--$2,000 to $4,999 (_§_) C--$5,000 to $9,999 (J&_) D--$10,000 to $14,999 (_5_) E--$15,000 to $19,999 (_§_) F--$20,000 to $24,999 (_1_) G-—$25,000 or More 49. (CODE THE INTERVIEWEE'S SEX.) 76 (_1_) Male Q;;_) Female 50. (CODE THE INTERVIEWEE'S RACE OR ANCESTRY.) 77 (_1_) Black (;;_) White (_3_) Spanish American (;4_) American Indian (_§_) Oriental ( 6 ) Other (SPECIFY) We are finished with the questionnaire. In all likelihood we will be contacting you again in a few months about your opinions on the debate in Congress on Watergate. Thank you very much for your time and your cooperation. Your opinions are very important for our research project. Again, thank you and goodbye. (DON'T FORGET TO GET YOUR CARDS BACK.) APPENDIX B WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY II INTRODUCTION TO WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY II I. FOR INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED AT TIME 1 Good Afternoon (Or Evening) . I'm , a (Year in School) at Michigan State. I'm working on a class project to find out the opinions of Lansing area residents on President Nixon's resignation. ‘May I speak to (Miss, Mrs. or Mr.) ((A) WHEN THE RESPONDENT COMES TO THE DOOR REPEAT THE ABOVE INTRODUCTION AND THEN READ THE STATEMENT BELOW: OR (B) IF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ANSWERED THE DOOR IS YOUR RESPONDENT, READ THE STATEMENT BELOW:) We interviewed you last month about your opinions on Watergate. Now, we would like to ask you a few questions about how you feel about President Nixon's resignation. It will only take about 15 minutes. (IF THE INDIVIDUAL SAYS HE DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO BE INTERVIEWED, DO YOUR BEST TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW AT A TIME THAT IS CONVENIENT FOR HIM.) II. FOR INDIVIDUALS AGE 18 AND OLDER WHO WERE NOT INTERVIEWED AT TIME 1 Good Afternoon (Or Evening) . I'm , a (Year in School) at Michigan State. I'm working on a class project to find out the opinions of Lansing area residents on President Nixon's resignation. I have a letter from the project directors that I would like you to read. (HAND THE LETTER TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND LET HIM LOOK IT OVER.) I would like to ask you a few questions about President Nixon's resignation. It will only take about 15 minutes. (IF THE INDIVIDUAL SAYS HE DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO BE INTERVIEWED, DO YOUR BEST TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW AT A TIME THAT IS CONVENIENT FOR HIM.) 162 APPENDIX B INTERVIEWER WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY II Column ( ) (CODE INTERVIEW NUMBER) 1-3 (CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE ANSWERS THAT CORRESPOND TO YOUR INTER- VIEWEE'S RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS. ALSO, NOTE THAT INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU ARE IN ALL CAPS TYPE. DO NOT READ OUT LOUD.) l. 2. Do you talk with friends about President Nixon's resignation? 4 (_1_) Yes ( 2 ) No DO you talk with friends about news stories on President Nixon's resignation? 5 ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No Did you have a chance to read any newspapers during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? (_1_) Yes 6 ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER.IS "NO," SKIP THE NEXT PAGE TO QUEST ION 6 .) (READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ONLY IF YOU ARE INTERVIEWING AFTER MONDAY, AUGUST 12.) Think of the week as beginning on Monday, August 5, when President Nixon admitted in a statement accompanying White House tape tran- scripts that he participated in the Watergate burglary cover-up. And, think of the week as ending the following Monday ... Monday, August 12 ... by which time President Ford had held office for four days. Which newspapers did you have a chance to read during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? (CIRCLE THE NUMBERS OF THE NEWSPAPERS THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE SAYS HE HAS READ AND THEN ASK.HIM THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.) Did you also have the chance to read any of these newspapers? 163 164 (READ THE NAMES OF THE NEWSPAPERS THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE DID NOT MENTION AND CIRCLE THE NUMBERS OF THE ADDITIONAL NEWSPAPERS THAT HE SAYS HE HAS READ.) ( l ) Lansing State Journal ( 2 ) Detroit Free Press ( 3 ) Detroit News ( 4 ) ‘MSU State News ( 5 ) (WRITE IN THE NAMES OF ALL ( 5 ) OTHER.NEWSPAPERS THAT YOUR ——- INTERVIEWEE SAYS HE HAS READ.) ( 5 ) 5. (WRITE IN THE CHART BELOW THE NUMBERS AND NAMES OF ALL THE NEWS- PAPERS THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE HAS READ. FOR EACH NEWSPAPER ASK QUESTION A AND IF THE ANSWER IS "YES," THEN ALSO ASK QUESTION B. IN QUESTION B, IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE CANNOT REMEMBER HOW’MANY STORIES HE HAS READ, THEN READ HIM THE CATEGORIES. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION A IS "NO," THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT NEWS- PAPER.) A. Did you read any stories about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Gerald Ford in the (NAME OF NEWSPAPER) during the week? B. About how many stories would you say you read? A. Nixon-Ford Newspapers Read Stories? B. Number of Stories Read? (I) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (g) 6-10 (3) Over 10 7-8-9 (I) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 lO-ll-12 (I) Yes (2) No (l) l-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 13-14-15 (I) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 16-17-18 (I) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 19-20-21 6. Did you have a chance to listen to any radio broadcasts during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP IO QUESTION 9.) 10. 165 (READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ONLY IF YOU ARE INTERVIEWING AFTER MONDAY, AUGUST 12.) Think of the week as beginning on Monday, August 5, when President Nixon admitted in a statement accompanying White House tape tran- scripts that he participated in the Watergate burglary cover-up. And, think of the week as ending the following Monday ... Monday, August 12 ... by which time President Ford had held office for four days. Did you have a chance to listen to any radio news broadcasts during the week about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Gerald Ford? 23 ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 9.) About how many radio news stories on these events did you listen to during the week? 24 ( 1 ) One to five ( 2 ) Six to ten ( 3 ) Eleven or More (IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE SAYS HE CAN'T REMEMBER, THEN READ HIM THE ABOVE CATEGORIES.) Did you have a chance to watch any television news broadcasts during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? ' 25 ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) NO (IF THE ANSWER Is "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 12.) (READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ONLY IF YOU ARE INTERVIEWING AFTER MONDAY, AUGUST 12.) Think of the week as beginning on.Monday, August 5, when President Nixon admitted in a statement accompanying White House tape transcripts that he participated in the Watergate burglary cover-up. And, think of the week as ending the following Monday ... Monday, August 12 ... by which time President Ford had held office for four days. Did you have a chance to watch any television news broadcasts during the week about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Gerald Ford? 26 ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER Is "NO," SKIP To QUESTION 12.) 11. 12. 13. 14. 166 About how many television news stories on these events did you watch during the week? 27 ( 1 ) One to five < 2 ) Six to ten ( 3 ) Eleven or More (IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE SAYS HE CAN'T REMEMBER, THEN READ HIM THE ABOVE CATEGORIES.) Did you have a chance to read any news magazines during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? ' 28 ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 15.) Which news magazines did you have a chance to read during the week? (CIRCLE THE NUMBERS OF THE NEWS MAGAZINES THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE SAYS HE HAS READ AND THEN ASK HIM THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.) Did you also have the chance to read any of these news magazines? (READ THE NAMES OF THE NEWS MAGAZINES THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE DID NOT MENTION AND CIRCLE THE NUMBERS OF THE ADDITIONAL NEWS MAGAZINES THAT HE SAYS HE HAS READ.) ( l ) Time ( 2 ) Newsweek ( 3 ) U.S. News & World Report (WRITE IN THE CHART BELOW THE NAMES OF ALL THE NEWS MAGAZINES THAT YOUR INTERVIEWEE HAS READ. FOR EACH NEWS MAGAZINE, ASK QUESTION A AND IF THE ANSWER IS "YES," THEN ALSO ASK QUESTION B. IN QUESTION B, IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE CANNOT REMEMBER HOW MANY STORIES HE HAS READ, THEN READ HIM THE CATEGORIES. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION A IS "NO," THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT NEWS'MAGAZINE.) A. Did you read any stories about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Gerald Ford during the past week? B. About how many stories would you say you read? 167 News Magazines A. Nixon-Ford Read Stories? B. Number of Stories Read?- (1) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 29-30-31 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Did you have a chance to watch any of the televised hearings held by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Repre- sentatives on the Articles to Impeach President Nixon? 38 > ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER IS "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 17.) About how many hours total would you say you spent watching the House Judiciary Committee deliberations? The 35 hours and 46 minutes of televised debate began on Wednesday, July 24, and ended on Tuesday, July 30. The length of debate is as follows: Wednesday, July 24, 2 hrs., 15 min.; Thursday, July 25, 8 hrs., 11 min.; Friday, July 26, 6 hrs., 46 min.; Saturday, July 27, 4 hrs., 21 min.; Monday, July 29, 7 hrs., 32 min. and Tuesday, July 30, 6 hrs., 41 min. 39 ( 1 1 to 5 hrs (_2_) 6 to 10 hrs (_3_) 11 to 15 hrs ___) 4 ) 16 hrs or more Did you have a chance to watch President Nixon's resignation speech on television at 9 p.m. Thursday, August 8? 40 ( 1 ) Yes (IF THE ANSWER IS "YES," SKIP TO QUESTION 19.) ( 2 ) No (IF THE ANSWER IS "No," ASK QUESTION 18.) Did you have a chance to listen to President Nixon's resignation speech on the radio at 9 p.m. Thursday, August 8? 41 (_1_) Yes (_2_) No Did you have a chance to read a newspaper account of President Nixon's resignation speech? 42 (_1_) Yes (__2_) No (1) Yes (g) No (1) 1-5 (g) 6-10 (3) Over 10 23-33-34 (1) Yes (2) No (1) 1-5 (2) 6-10 (3) Over 10 35-36-37 20. Did you have a chance to watch television when President Ford took the oath of office at noon Friday, August 9? (_1_) Yes (_2_) No 21. Did you have a chance to listen to the radio when President Ford took the oath of office at noon Friday, August 9? ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No 22. Did you have a chance to read a newspaper account about President Ford taking his oath of office? (_1_) Yes (_2_) No I'm handing you a card that has five things written on it-- strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and strongly disagree. I'm going to read you a list of statements and I want you to tell me which of the things best fits your own opinion about each statement. On the top of the card there is an attitude scale. If you have no feeling one way or the other about a statement, you would be in the middle of the scale where it says "neither agree nor disagree." If you have strong feelings about the statement, your feelings would be at either end of the scale and you would either "agree strongly" or "disagree strongly." However, if your feelings about a statement are not that strong, then you would simply say that you agree or disagree with the statement. Now, I will read you the statements: Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 23. President Nixon's resignation indicates that he is guilty of an impeachable offense. VVV vv Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 24. Nixon was railroaded out of office by the biased news media. A AA AA AA AA VV VVV (IF THE ANSWER 13 "YES," SKIP To QUESTION 22.) | 1 I 168 43 44 45 46 47 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. The Nixon Administration was corrupt. I did not pay careful attention to what the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee had to say in defense of President Nixon. President Nixon should not be prosecuted on any of the charges that have been made against him because his resignation is punishment enough. I kept up on what was in the news during the week Nixon resigned because I was interested in finding out the latest developments. Congress should continue the impeachment process against Nixon. The news media were out to get Nixon. AAA LON vvv A VV A AA AAA VV vvv AAA CAN]... vvv AA vv [H AAA ml... vvv AA VV AA AAA VV VVV AAA VVV AA U1 vv Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 169 48 49 50 51 52 53 31. 32. 33. 34. 170 President Nixon was guilty (_l_) Strongly agree 54 of an impeachable offense g_g_) Agree because he obstructed (_3_) Neither agree justice by participating in nor disagree the Watergate burglary cover-up. (_4_) Disagree (_2_) Strongly disagree Congress should grant Nixon (_L_) Strongly agree 55 immunity from prosecution on (_2_) Agree federal charges. (_3_) Neither agree nor disagree (_4_) Disagree (‘§_) Strongly disagree Did you support President Nixon before the 1972 presidential 56 Which of the following statements best indicate whether you were a Nixon supporter two years ago? election? A A A A A v v v I I I strongly supported Nixon's re-election in 1972. supported Nixon's re-election in 1972. neither supported Nixon's re-election nor was I against his re-election in 1972. was against Nixon's re-election in 1972. was strongly against Nixon's re-election in 1972. If President Nixon would have stayed in office as 57 President to fight the charges made against him, would you have supported him? Which of the following state- ments best indicates how you feel? 1 AA 3 A A A v ) _Z_) ) I I I would have strongly supported him. would have supported him. would neither have supported nor opposed his remaining in office. would have been opposed to his remaining in office. would have been strongly opposed to his remaining in office. 35. 36. 37. Here's another card. 38. (IF YOUR INTERVIEWEE SAYS HE STRONGLY SUPPORTS NIXON, ASK HIM THE NEXT QUESTION. OTHERWISE SKIP DOWN To QUESTION 37.) Would you have supported Nixon because you believe he is innocent of any impeachable offenses? A 1 ) Yes (IF "YES," SKIP TO QUESTION 37.) ) No (IF "NO," ASK QUESTION 37.) A Would you have supported Nixon's remaining in office because you felt it would have been better if he would have been removed from office through impeachment pro- ceedings in Congress? A _l_) Yes 2 ) No A How would you rate President Nixon's overall performance as President? (_l_) Excellent (_2_) Good {4;_) Neither good nor poor Q:g_) Poor ( 5 ) Terrible 171 Column 58 59 60 Look at it to answer the next three questions. Generally speaking, are you concerned about how the country 61 is being affected by President Nixon's resignation? A H ) Very concerned Concerned Neither concerned nor unconcerned VVV Unconcerned A A A ) Very unconcerned 39. 40. 41. 42. Generally speaking, are you concerned about how the country's foreign policy will be affected by President Nixon's resignation? (_1_) Very concerned (_g_) Concerned (_2_) Neither concerned nor unconcerned Q:&_) Unconcerned (_§_) Very unconcerned Generally speaking, are you concerned about how you will personally be affected by President Nixon's resignation. By personally affected, I mean do you feel that the transfer of power from President Nixon to Vice President Ford will affect your job or your standard of living? (_1_) Very concerned (_2_) Concerned ($1.) Neither concerned nor unconcerned (_&_) Unconcerned (_2_) Very unconcerned How did you first learn that President Nixon was planning to resign? (_1_) From television (_2_) From radio (_§_) From the newspaper (_é_) Someone told me (A) Other. (IF OTHER, ASK FOR AN EXPLANATION.) What time and day did you learn that President Nixon had addressed the nation with the official announcement that he would resign the Presidency? 172 62 63 65 Now, refer back to the first card I gave you. how much you agree or disagree with these statements. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Nixon should have remained in office so that the consti- tutional provisions for im- peachment could have been carried out against him. I paid attention to news stories in which someone on President Nixon's staff explained the President's position on some aspect of the events leading up to his resignation. Nixon should go to jail for what he has done. The news media did the country a great service by reporting on the events leading up to Nixon's resignation. I avoided reading news stories on the events leading up to Nixon's resignation. The news media were biased in their coverage of the events leading up to Nixon's resigna- tion. (_L_) (_2_) (_§_) LL) (_2_) AA A VV AA AAA VV VVV AA A A M. Ma. vvv VV AA AAA .4. IUINIH VV VVV AA AAA U1|4> lwlmlH VV VVV Please tell me Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 173 66 67 68 69 70 71 174 49. I preferred to listen to (_1_) Strongly agree 72 news broadcasts that sup- (_g_) Agree ported President Nixon in (_§_) Neither agree his fight against impeachment. nor disagree ( 4 ) Disagree ) Strongly disagree We're almost through now. But I have a few more questions about yourself that I want to ask you. 50. Your name is and you live at in and your phone number is . Is this correct? 51. What is your occupation? 73 Please describe your job. What specifically do you do? 52. What is your age? 74 (_1_) 18-21 (_2_) 22-30 (_3_) 31-45 (_5;) 46-64 ( 5 ) 65 or Older 53. What is your political party preference? 75 ( l ) Democrat (_g_) Republican Independent Other (IF OTHER, ASK.YOUR.INTERVIEWEE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.) Can you be more specific? 175 54. How much schooling have you had? 76 Elementary Education Junior High School Some High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate Graduate School or Professional Work AAA/\AAA vvvvvvv 55. I'm handing you a card that has income categories 77 lettered from A through G. Please give me the letter that best fits your household's total income. This includes everybody in your household who lives at home and brings home a paycheck. (_1_) A--Under $1,999 (_2_) B--$2,000 to $4,999 (_3_) C--$5,000 to $9,999 (A) D--$l0,000 to $14,999 (_2_) E--$15,000 to $19,999 (_6_) F--$20,000 to $24,999 (_1_) G--$25,000 or More 56. (CODE THE INTERVIEWEE'S SEX.) 78 (_1__) Male (_2_) Female 57. (CODE THE INTERVIEWEE'S RACE OR ANCESTRY.) 79 (___) Black (_g_) White ( 3 ) Spanish American Q;£_) American Indian ( 5 ) Oriental ( ) Other (SPECIFY) We are finished with the questionnaire. Thank you very much for your time and your cooperation. Your opinions are very important for our research project. Again, thank you and goodbye. (DON'T FORGET TO GET YOUR CARDS BACK.) APPENDIX C LETTER OF INTRODUCTION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48823 DEPARTMENT OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ' 322 UNION BUILDING July, 1974 To: Lansing Area Residents From: John D. Abel and Diana Tillinghast We are conducting a study to determine how Lansing area residents feel about Watergate and whether they feel President Nixon should be impeached. You are one Of 300 individuals who has been selected to participate in the study. Your household was selected at random from the telephone book. You are guaranteed com- plete anonymity and your answers will be used only in combina- tion with others. The interview, which will take only about 15 minutes, is being conducted as part Of the course work for upperclass and graduate students. The students will be glad.tO answer any questions you might have. But, if you have other ques- tions, please feel free to telephone us at 353-1674 or to write us at the above address. People have very little chance to be heard in our impersonal society. It is only through such things as public Opinion surveys that individuals are able tO voice their Opinions about politicians and the issues. We would greatly appreciate your help and COOperation because your Opinions are very important to the success Of our research project. incerely yours, 424M Ohn D. Abel roject Director Diana Ti llinghast 2 Project Director 176 APPENDIX D RESULTS OF WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY I APPENDIX D RESULTS OF WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY I 1. Do you talk with friends about the things that are going on in Washington? N=226 85% Yes 15% No 2. Do you talk with friends about news stories on the Watergate- Impeachment issue? N=226 82% Yes 18% No 3. Did you have the chance to read any newspapers during the past week? N=226 81% Yes 19% No 4-5. IF YES TO Q. 3: During the past week, did you have a chance to read the Lansing State Journal, the Detroit Free Press, the MSU State News or other newspapers? IF YES: Did you read any stories related to the Watergate-Impeachment issue? IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? LANSING STATE JOURNAL: Did you have a chance to read the Lansing State Journal? N=226 73% Yes 27% No IF YES: Did you read any watergate-Impeachment stories? N=164 71% Yes 29% No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=ll8 49% One to Five Stories 29% Six to Ten Stories 22% Eleven or More Stories 177 DETROIT FREE PRESS: Did you have a chance N=226 43% 57% IF YES: Did you read N=98 89% 11% 178 to read the Detroit Free Press? Yes No any Watergate-Impeachment stories? Yes No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=86 60% 26% 14% MSU STATE NEWS: Did you have a chance N=226 18% 82% IF YES: Did you read N=41 68% 32% One to Five Stories Six to Ten Stories Eleven or More Stories to read the MSU State News? Yes NO any Watergate-Impeachment stories? Yes NO IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=28 89% 7% 4% OTHER NEWSPAPERS: Did you have a chance N=226 21% 79% IF YES: Did you read =46 80% 20% One to Five Stories Six to Ten Stories Eleven or More Stories to read any other newspapers? Yes No any Watergate-Impeachment stories? Yes No IF YES: 65% 19% 16% N=37 TOTAL NUMBER OF NEWSPAPERS 179 About how many stories would you say you read? One to Five Stories Six to Ten Stories Eleven or More Stories Number of respondents who read newspapers during the past week. N=226 81% 19% Yes, Read Newspapers NO, Did Not Read Newspapers Number of respondents who read newspapers who read Watergate- Impeachment stories. N=182 81% 19% Yes, Read Watergate-Impeachment stories No, Did Not Read Watergate-Impeachment stories Number of newspapers read by respondents on the Watergate- Impeachment issue. N=148 42% 38% 14% 6% One Newspaper Two Newspapers Three Newspapers Four Newspapers Total number of newspaper stories read by respondents on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. N=148 26% 35% 16% 11% 5% 4% 3% One to Five Stories Six to Ten Stories Eleven to Fifteen Stories Sixteen to Twenty Stories Twenty-one to Twenty-five Stories Twenty-six to Thirty Stories Thirty-one or More Stories Did you have a chance to listen to any radio news broadcasts during the past week? 86% 14% N=226 IF YES TO Q. 6: Yes NO Did you have a chance to listen to any radio news broadcasts during the past week that included stories re- lated to the Watergate-Impeachment issue? N=194 77% Yes 24% NO 10. 11. 12. 180 IF YES TO Q. 7: About how many radio news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue did you listen to during the past week? N=149 36% One to Five BroadcaSts 31% Six to Ten Broadcasts 33% Eleven or More Broadcasts Did you have a chance to watch any television news broadcasts during the past week? N=226 90% Yes 10% NO IF YES TO Q. 9: Did you have a chance to watch any television news broadcasts that included stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue during the past week? N=203 85% Yes 15% No IF YES TO Q. 10: About how many television news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue did you watch during the past week? N=172 38% One to Five Broadcasts 35% Six to Ten Broadcasts 27% Eleven or More Broadcasts Did you have the chance to read any news magazines during the past month? N=226 44% Yes 56% No 13-14. IF YES TO Q. 12: During the past month, did you have a chance to read Time magazine, Newsweek magazine or other news magazines? IF YES: Did you read any stories related to the Watergate- Impeachment issue in the magazine? IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? TIME: Did you have a chance to read Time magazine? N=226 27% Yes 73% No 181 IF YES: Did you read any Watergate-Impeachment stories? N=6l 89% Yes 11% No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=54 68% One to Five Stories 15% Six to Ten Stories 17% Eleven or More Stories NEWSWEEK: Did you have a chance to read Newsweek magazine? N=226 24% Yes 76% NO IF YES: Did you read any Watergate-Impeachment stories? N=55 91% Yes 9% No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=50 70% One to Five Stories 16% Six to Ten Stories 14% Eleven orVMore Stories TOTAL NUMBER OF NEWS MAGAZINES Number of respondents who read news magazines during the past month. N=226 44% Yes, Read News Magazines 56% NO, Did Not Read News Magazines Number of respondents who read news magazines who read Watergate- Impeachment stories. N=lOO 94% Yes, Read Watergate-Impeachment Stories 6% No, Did Not Read Watergate-Impeachment Stories Number of news magazines read by respondents on the Watergate- Impeachment issue. N=93 75% One News Magazine 19% TWO News Magazines 6% Three News Magazines 15. 182 Total number of stories in news magazines read by respondents on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. N=93 56% One to Five Stories 26% Six to Ten Stories 10% Eleven to Fifteen Stories 4% Sixteen to Twenty Stories 1% Twenty-one to Twenty-five Stories 2% Twenty-six to Thirty Stories 1% Thirty-one or More Stories Did any of the following publications provide you with informa- tion about the Watergate-Impeachment issue: church publications, union publications, American Legion pub1ications, Republican party publications, Democratic party publications or other specialized publications? CHURCH PUBLICATIONS: Did church publications provide you with information about the Watergate-Impeachment issue? N=226 7% Yes 93% No UNION PUBLICATIONS: Did union publications provide you with information about the Watergate-Impeachment issue? N=226 12% Yes 88% No AMERICAN LEGION PUBLICATIONS: Did American Legion publications provide you with information about the Watergate-Impeachment issue? N=226 2% Yes 98% No REPUBLICAN PARTY PUBLICATIONS: Did Republican party publications provide you with information about the Watergate-Impeachment issue? N=226 4% Yes 96% No 16. 17. 18. 19. 183 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PUBLICATIONS: Did Democratic party publications provide you with informa- tion about the Watergate-Impeachment issue? N=226 14% Yes 86% No OTHER PUBLICATIONS: Did other publications provide you with information about the Watergate Impeachment issue? N=226 12% Yes 88% No The U.S. House of Representatives should impeach President Nixon. N=225 42% Strongly Agree 22% Agree 12% Neither Agree Nor Disagree 16% Disagree 8% Strongly Disagree I was shocked when I found out from reports about the Watergate tapes that President Nixon swears a lot. N=226 9% Strongly Agree 16% Agree 23% Neither Agree Nor Disagree 39% Disagree 13% Strongly Disagree I was upset when I found out that President Nixon owed about $500,000 in back taxes and interest. N=225 32% Strongly Agree 39% Agree 11% Neither Agree Nor Disagree 13% Disagree 5% Strongly Disagree I do not listen to broadcasts by President Nixon when he ex- plains his side of the Watergate-Impeachment issue. N=224 5% Strongly Agree 10% Agree 8% Neither Agree Nor Disagree 55% Disagree 22% Strongly Disagree 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 184 Watergate is the worst scandal in our history. 21% 27% 15% 29% 9% N=224 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I read a newspaper because I'm interested in finding out the latest news on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. N=225 11% 26% 18% 40% 5% President Nixon should anything that could be N=225 3% 8% 16% 30% 43% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree not be impeached because he hasn't done considered grounds for impeachment. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree It is hard to get away from information about the Watergate- Impeachment issue because the news media are devoting so much time and space to it. 30% 46% 9% 12% 3% N=224 The news media are out N=224 7% 2 1°. 22% 34% 16% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree to get President Nixon. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Watergate reveals corruption in the Nixon administration. 42% 45% 7% 4% 2% N=226 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 26. I listen to a newscast the latest news on the N=225 15% 36% 14% 31% 4% 27. Generally speaking, do in time? Which of the you feel? N=225 4% 12% 25% 24% 35% 185 because I'm interested in finding out Watergate-Impeachment issue. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree you support President Nixon at this point following statements best indicates how I strongly support him. I support him. I neither support nor am against him. I am against him. I am strongly against him. 28. Did you support President Nixon before the 1972 presidential election? Which of the following statements best indicates whether you were a Nixon supporter two years ago? N=226 12% 23% 11% 23% 31% I strongly supported Nixon's re-election in 1972. I supported Nixon's re-election in 1972. I neither supported Nixon's re-election nor was I against his re-election in 1972. was against Nixon's re-election in 1972. I was strongly against Nixon's re-election in 1972. H 29. How do you rate President Nixon's performance in foreign affairs? N=226 21% 40% 26% 7% 6% Excellent Good Neither Good Nor Poor Poor Terrible 30. How do you rate President Nixon's overall performance as President? N=226 3% 16% 26% 36% 19% Excellent Good Neither Good Nor Poor Poor Terrible 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 186 Generally speaking, are you concerned about how the country is being affected by the Watergate-Impeachment issue? 47% 42% 5% 4% 2% N=225 Very Concerned Concerned Neither Concerned Nor Unconcerned Unconcerned Very Unconcerned Generally speaking, are you concerned about how you would per- sonally be affected if Nixon were impeached? By personally affected, I mean would it affect your job or your standard of living? N=226 7% 22% 24% 40% 7% Very Concerned Concerned Neither Concerned Nor Unconcerned Unconcerned Very Unconcerned The news media have not been fair in their coverage of the Watergate-Impeachment 6% 15% 18% 47% 14% N=226 issue. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I pay attention to news stories in which someone on President Nixon's staff explains the President's position on some aspect of the Watergate-Impeachment issue. 15% 58% 13% 11% 3% N=224 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree When I read news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue, I don't pay careful attention to them. 4% 20% 14% 48% 14% N=226 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 187 The news media have done the country a great service by reporting on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. 32% 44% 13% 6% 5% N=225 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I avoid reading news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. 2% 15% 10% 48% 25% N=226 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The news media have blown the Watergate-Impeachment issue way out of proportion. 9% 15% 17% 35% 24% N=226 I prefer to listen to Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree news broadcasts that support President Nixon on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. N=225 1% 12% 29% 42% 16% Strongly agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I keep up on what is happening on the Watergate-Impeachment issue because I don't want to miss out on new information. 13% 46% 18% 20% 3% N=226 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The news media have been accurate in their coverage of the Watergate-Impeachment 6% 42% 36% 13% 3% N=225 issue. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 188 42. I'm tired of news stories on the Watergate-Impeachment issue. N=226 13% Strongly Agree 30% Agree 12% Neither Agree Nor DiSagree 32% Disagree 13% Strongly Disagree 43. What is your occupation? N=223 7% Unskilled Labor 10% Clerical, Sales 27% Professional, Manager 14% Student 18% Housewife 10% Retired 2% Unemployed 12% Self-employed, Skilled 44. What is your age? N=224 12% 18 to 21 34% 22 to 30 19% 31 to 45 26% 46 to 64 9% 65 Or Older 45. What is your political party preference? N=225 39% Democrat 18% Republican 40% Independent 3% Other 46. How much schooling have you had? N=225 1% Elementary 2% Junior High School 6% Some High School 24% High School Graduate 36% Some College 16% College Graduate 15% Graduate School or Professional 47. What is your household N=218 6% 14% 19% 22% 20% 13% 6% 48. Respondent's sex. N=225 45% 55% 49. Respondent's Race. 5% 93% 1% 0% 1% N=226 189 income? Under $1,999 $2,000 to $4,999 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 or More Male Female Black White Spanish American American Indian Other APPENDIX E RESULTS OF WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY II APPENDIX E RESULTS OF WATERGATE-IMPEACHMENT SURVEY II 1. Do you talk with friends about President Nixon's resignation? N=214 91% Yes 9% No 2. Do you talk with friends about news stories on President Nixon's resignation? N=210 75% Yes 25% No 3. Did you have a chance to read any newspapers during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? N=214 86% Yes 14% No 4-5. IF YES TO 0. 3: During the week that Nixon resigned and the Presidency was transferred to Gerald Ford, did you have a chance to read the Lansing State Journal, the Detroit Free Press, the MSU State News or other newspapers? Think of the week as be- ginning on Monday, Aug. 5, when President Nixon admitted in a statement accompanying White House tape transcripts that he participated in the Watergate burglary cover-up. And, think of the week as ending the following Monday on Aug. 12, by which time President Ford had held office for four days. IF YES: Did you read any stories related to Nixon's resignation? IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? LANSING STATE JOURNAL: Did you have a chance to read the Lansing State Journal? N=214 72% Yes 28% No 190 191 IF YES: Did you read any stories about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presi- dency to Gerald Ford? N=155 93% Yes 7% No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=l44 49% One to Five Stories 23% Six to Ten Stories 28% Eleven or More Stories DETROIT FREE PRESS: Did you have a chance to read the Detroit Free Press? N=214 41% Yes 59% No IF YES: Did you read any stories about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presi- dency to Gerald Ford? N=86 98% Yes 2% No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=84 46% One to Five Stories 18% Six to Ten Stories 36% Eleven or More Stories MSU STATE NEWS: Did you have a chance to read the MSU State News? N=214 12% Yes 88% No IF YES: Did you read any stories about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presi- dency to Gerald Ford? N=25 96% Yes 4% No 192 IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=24 75% One to Five Stories 21% Six to Ten Stories 4% Eleven or'More Stories OTHER NEWSPAPERS: Did you have a chance to read any other newspapers? N=214 22% Yes 78% No IF YES: Did you read any stories about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presi- dency to Gerald Ford? N=47 98% Yes 2% No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=46 48% One to Five Stories 13% Six to Ten Stories 39% Eleven or More Stories TOTAL NUMBER OF NEWSPAPERS Number of respondents who read newspapers during the week in which President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford assumed the Presidency. N=216 85% Yes, Read Newspapers 15% No, Did Not Read Newspapers Number of respondents who read newspapers who read stories on the events leading up to President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Ford. N=183 95% Yes, Read Resignation Stories 5% No, Did Not Read Resignation Stories Number of newspapers read by respondents on the events leading up to President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presi- dency to Ford. N=174 45% One Newspaper 37% Two Newspapers 13% Three Newspapers 5% Four Newspapers 10. 193 Total number of newspaper stories read by respondents on the resignation events. N=174 24% One to Five Stories 28% Six to Ten Stories 20% Eleven to Fifteen Stories 9% Sixteen to Twenty Stories 3% Twenty-one to Twenty-five Stories 11% Twenty-six to Thirty Stories 5% Thirty-one or More Stories Did you have a chance to listen to any radio broadcasts during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? N=215 88% Yes 12% No IF YES TO Q. 6: Did you have a chance to listen to any radio news broadcasts during the week about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Gerald Ford? N=189 80% Yes 20% No IF YES TO Q. 7: About how many radio news stories that included stories on these events did you listen to during the week? N=154 32% One to Five Broadcasts 27% Six to Ten Broadcasts 41% Eleven or More Broadcasts Did you have a chance to watch any television news broadcasts during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? N=215 94% Yes 6% No IF YES T0 Q. 9: Did you have a chance to watch any television news broadcasts during the week about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Gerald Ford? N=202 95% Yes 5% No ll. 12. 194 IF YES TO Q. 10: About how many television news stories on these events did you watch during the week? N=201 30% One to Five Broadcasts 36% Six to Ten Broadcasts 34% Eleven or More Broadcasts Did you have a chance to read any news magazines during the week that President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford became President? N=213 33% Yes 67% No 13-14. IF YES TO Q. 12: During that week, did you have a chance to read Time magazine, Newsweek magazine or other magazines? IF YES: Did you read any stories related to the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Gerald Ford? IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? TIME: Did you have a chance to read Time magazine? N=215 21% Yes 79% No IF YES: Did you read any stories about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presi- dency to Gerald Ford? N=43 95% Yes 5% No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=41 66% One to Five Stories 19% Six to Ten Stories 15% Eleven or More Stories NEWSWEEK: Did you have a chance to read Newsweek magazine? N=215 17% Yes 83% No 195 IF YES: Did you read any stories about the events that resulted in President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presi- dency to Gerald Ford? N=37 97% Yes 3% No IF YES: About how many stories would you say you read? N=37 84% One to Five Stories 11% Six to Ten Stories 5% Eleven or More Stories TOTAL NUMBER.OF NEWS MAGAZINES 15. Number of respondents who read news magazines during the week in which President Nixon resigned and Vice President Ford assumed the Presidency. N=213 33% Yes, Read News Magazines 67% No, Did Not Read News Magazines Number of respondents who read news magazines who read stories on the events leading up to President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Ford. N=7O 97% Yes, Read Resignation Stories 4% No, Did Not Read Resignation Stories Number of news magazines read by respondents on the events leading up to President Nixon's resignation and the transfer of the Presidency to Ford. N=7O 64% One News Magazine 33% Two News Magazines 3% Three News Magazines Number of resignation related stories in news magazines read by respondents. N=68 53% One to Five Stories 29% Six to Ten Stories 12% Eleven to Fifteen Stories 3% Sixteen to Twenty Stories 2% Twenty-one to Twenty-five Stories 1% Twenty-six to Thirty Stories Did you have a chance to watch any of the televised hearings held by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Represen- tatives on the Articles to Impeach President Nixon? N=216 73% Yes 27% No 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 196 IF YES TO Q. 15: About how many hours total would you say you spent watching the House Judiciary Committee deliberations? The 35 hours and 46 minutes of televised debate began on Wednesday, July 24, and ended on Tuesday, July 30. The length of debate is as follows: wednesday, July 24, 2 hrs., 15 min.; Thursday, July 25, 8 hrs., 11 min.; Friday, July 26, 6 hrs., 46 min., Saturday, July 27, 4 hrs., 21 min.; Monday, July 29, 7 hrs., 32 min. and Tuesday, July 30, 6 hrs., 41 min. N=158 51% One to Five Hours 24% Six to Ten Hours 15% Eleven to Fifteen Hours 10% Sixteen Hours or'More Did you have a chance to watch President Nixon's resignation speech on television at 9 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 8? N=214 86% Yes 14% No IF NO TO Q. 17. Did you have a chance to listen to President Nixon's resignation speech on the radio at 9 p.m., Thursday, Aug. 8? N=3O 66% Yes 34% No Did you have a chance to read a newspaper account of President Nixon's resignation? N=214 67% Yes 33% No Did you have a chance to watch television when President Ford took the oath of office at noon Friday, Aug. 9? N=213 58% Yes 42% No IF NO TO Q. 20: Did you have a chance to listen to the radio when President Ford took the oath of office at noon, Friday, Aug. 9? N=9O 32% Yes 68% No Did you have a chance to read a newspaper account about Presi- dent Ford taking his oath of office? N=212 70% Yes 30% No 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 197 President Nixon's resignation indicates that he is guilty of an impeachable offense. 33% 29% 12% 20% 6% N=216 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Nixon was railroaded out of office by the biased news media. 5% 6% 10% 45% 34% N=216 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The Nixon Administration was corrupt. 28% 50% 11% 9% 2% N=215 I did not pay careful Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree attention to what the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee had to say in defense of President 2% 20% 16% 46% 16% N=213 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree President Nixon should not be prosecuted on any of the charges that have been made against him because his resignation is punishment enough. 10% 21% 13% 32% 24% N=214 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 198 I kept up on what was in the news during the week Nixon resigned because I was interested in finding out the latest developments. 32% 57% 2% 8% 1% N=214 Congress should continue the impeachment 12% 19% 13% 42% 14% N=215 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree process against Nixon. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The news media were out to get Nixon. 6% 15% 18% 40% 21% N=216 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree President Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense because he obstructed justice by participating in the Watergate burglary vcover-up. N=216 32% 54% 5% 7% 2% Congress should grant charges. 4% 14% 19% 39% 24% N=214 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Nixon immunity from prosecution on federal Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 199 Did you support President Nixon before the 1972 presidential election? Which of the following statements best indicate whether you were a Nixon supporter two years ago? N=215 16% I strongly supported Nixon's re-election in 1972. 21% I supported Nixon's re-election in 1972. 18% I neither supported Nixon's re- election nor was I against his re-election in 1972. 22% I was against Nixon's re-election in 1972. 23% I was strongly against Nixon's re-election in 1972. If President Nixon would have stayed in office as President to fight the charges made against him, would you have supported him? Which of the following statements best indicates how you feel? N=216 6% I would have strongly supported him. 14% would have supported him. 14% I would neither have supported nor opposed his remaining in office. 32% I would have been opposed to his remaining in office. 34% I would have been strongly opposed to his remaining in office. H IF Q. 34 IS STRONGLY SUPPORT OR SUPPORT: Would you have supported Nixon because you believe he is innocent of any impeachable offense? N=43 42% Yes 58% No IF Q. 35 IS NO: Would you have supported Nixon's remaining in office because you felt it would have been better if he would have been removed from office through impeachment proceedings in Congress? N=25 38% Yes 62% No How would you rate President Nixon's overall performance as President? N=214 5% Excellent 29% Good 31% Neither Good Nor Poor 24% Poor 11% Terrible 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 200 Generally speaking, are you concerned about how the country is being affected by President Nixon's resignation? 24% 51% 10% 14% 1% N=216 Very Concerned Concerned ~ Neither Concerned Nor Unconcerned Unconcerned Very unconcerned. Generally speaking, are you concerned about how the country's foreign policy will be affected by President Nixon's resignation? 17% 43% 12% 23% 5% N=216 Very Concerned Concerned Neither Concerned Nor Unconcerned Unconcerned Very Unconcerned Generally speaking, are you concerned about how you will per- sonally be affected by President Nixon's resignation. By per- sonally affected, I mean do you feel that the transfer of power from President Nixon to Vice President Ford will affect your job or your standard of living? 8% 25% 18% 41% 8% N=215 Very Concerned Concerned Neither Concerned Nor Unconcerned Unconcerned Very Unconcerned How did you first learn that President Nixon was planning to resign? 72% 15% 2% 10% 1% N=215 What time and day did From Television From Radio From Newspapers Someone Told Me Other you learn that President Nixon had addressed the nation with the official announcement that he would resign the Presidency? N=124 96% 1% 2% 1% Between Between 9:04 and 9:15 p.m. Aug. 8 9:15 p.m. and midnight Aug. 8 Between 12:01 a.m. and 9:15 p.m. Aug. 9 Between 9:15 p.m. Aug. 9 and 9:15 p.m. Aug 10 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 201 Nixon should have remained in office so that the constitutional provisions for impeachment could have been carried out against him. N=216 7% 16% 16% 46% 15% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I paid attention to news stories in which someone on President Nixon's staff explained the President's position on some aspect of the events leading N=214 9% 61% 14% 14% 2% up to his resignation. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Nixon should go to jail for what he has done. 12% 18% 27% 31% 12% N=208 The news media did the the events leading up 29% 50% 11% 7% 3% N=213 I avoided reading news Nixon's resignation. N=213 1% 10% 7% 50% 32% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree country a great service by reporting on to Nixon's resignation. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree stories on the events leading up to Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 202 48. The news media were biased in their coverage of the events leading up to Nixon's resignation. N=214 6% 18% 17% 43% 16% 49. I preferred to listen Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree to news broadcasts that supported President Nixon in his fight against impeachment. N=215 2% 12% 30% 44% 12% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 50. What is your occupation? N=216 9% 9% 25% 14% 20% 10% 2% 11% 51. What is your age? N=216 10% 33% 21% 26% 10% Unskilled Labor Clerical, Sales Professional, Manager Student Housewife Retired Unemployed Self-employed, Skilled 18 to 21 22 to 30 31 to 45 45 to 64 65 or Older 52. What is your political party preference? N=216 37% 23% 34% 6% Democrat Republican Independent Other 203 53. How much schooling have you had? N=216 1% Elementary 2% Junior High School 6% Some High School 23% High School Graduate 34% Some College 19% College Graduate 15% Graduate School or Professional 54. What is your annual household income? N=205 7% Under $1,999 10% $2,000 to $4,999 16% $5,000 to $9,999 24% $10,000 to $14,999 22% $15,000 to $19,999 12% $20,000 to $24,999 9% $25,000 or More 55. Respondent's sex. N=214 47% Male 53% Female 56. Respondent's race. N=213 5% Black 92% White 1% Spanish American 0% American Indian 2% Other TABLE A: TABLE B: APPENDIX F FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ATTITUDE TOWARD NIXON AND THE NEWS MEDIA SCALES FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR INFORMATION SEEKING AND SELECTIVE EXPOSURE SCALES APPENDIX F TABLE A Frequency Distribution for Attitude toward Nixon and the News Media Scales* Respondents Interviewed In Both Waves Cate- All Time 1 All Time 2 Scale gories Respondents Respondents Time 1 Time 2 N=226 N=214 N=182 N=182 Composite 1 9.7% 5.1% 9.9% 4.9% Attitude 2 43.4% 39.7% 41.2% 41.2% Toward 3 30.1% 37.4% 30.8% 37.8% Nixon** 4 12.8% 14.5% 12.6% 13.2% 5 4.0% 3.3% 4.4% 2.6% **Nixon composite attitude is a 1-5 scale where 1 is a very unfavorable attitude toward Nixon and 5 is a very favorable attitude toward Nixon. 1 8.9% 9.3% Punish 2 27.1% 26.9% Nixon*** 3 29.4% 30.2% 4 27.6% 27.5% 5 7.0% 6.0% ***Punish Nixon is a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement with statements that Nixon should be punished. l 2.2% 1.4% 2.0% 1.6% Blame 2 8.4% 4.2% 8.2% 3.2% News 3 20.4% 17.8% 20.1% 15.9% Media**** 4 41.7% 41.2% 41.7% 42.3% 5 27.6% 35.4% 27.5% 36.8% ****B1ame news media is a 1-5 scale ranging from 1 for strong agree- ment to 5 for strong disagreement with statements that the news media were out to get Nixon. *Since the categorical frequency distributions were formed from contin- uous variables, the differences between Time 1 and Time 2 may not adequately reflect the true differences because the collapsing of the data resulted in a loss of information. 204 Frequency Distributions for Information Seeking and Selective Exposure Scales* TABLE B 205 Respondents Interviewed In Both Waves Cate- All Time 1 All Time 2 Scale gories Respondents Respondents Time 1 Time 2 N=226 N=214 N=182 N=182 1 19.2% 11.5% 17.1% 11.3% Amount of 2 28.6% 23.9% 27.1% 20.3% Information 3 34.7% 39.7% 35.8% 41.8% Seeking** 4 17.4% 24.9% 20.0% 26.6% **Amount of information seeking has been collapsed to a 1-4 scale where l is 1-10 news stories, 2 is 11-20 news stories, 3 is 21-35 news stories and 4 is 36 or more news stories. Attention To News Content*** ***Attention to news content is a 1-5 scale where 1 is very high UI-F-‘OJNt—I 2.7% 26.1% 42.5% 27.0% 1.8% 22.9% 56.5% 13.6% 7.0% 0.0% attention and 5 is very low attention. 2.7% 28.0% 40.2% 26.9% 1.7% 23.6% 56.6% 13.2% 6.5% 0.0% Preference for Information Supportive Of Nixon*** 1 2 3 4 5 0.4% 18.6% 62.4% 14.6% 4.0% 0.0% 12.6% 65.0% 21.0% 1.4% 0.5% 18.3% 62.6% 14.1% 4.1% 0.0% 13.6% 63.8% 21.9% 0.5% ****Preference for information supportive of Nixon is a 1-5 scale, ranging from 1 for strong agreement to 5 for strong disagreement with statements indicating a preference and/or attention to information supportive of Nixon. *Since the categorical frequency distributions were formed from contin- uous variables, the differences between Time 1 and Time 2 may not adequately reflect the true differences because the collapsing of the data resulted in a loss of information. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES ABELSON, R.P., ARONSON, E., MCGUIRE, W.J., NEWCOMB, T.M., ROSENBERG, M.J. & TANNENBAUM, P.H. (Eds.) (1968). Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. New York: Rand McNally. ABELSON, R.B. & TUKEY, J.W. (1970). "Efficient conversion of non- metric information into metric information." In E.R. Tufte (Ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Reading, Mass.: Addison wesley. ALLPORT, G.W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press. ATKIN, C.K. (1971). "How imbalanced campaign coverage affects audi- ence exposure patterns." Journalism Quarterly, 48: 235-244. ATKIN, C.K. (1973). "Instrumental utilities and information seeking." In P. Clarke (Ed.), New Models for Mass Communication Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. BECKER, L.B. (1976). "Two tests of media gratifications: Watergate and the 1974 election." Journalism Quarterly, 53:28-33;87. BECKER, L.B., McCOMBS, M.E. 6. McLEOD, J.M. (1975). "The development of political cognitions." In S.H. Chaffee (Ed.), Political Communications: Issues and Strategies for Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. BECKER, L.B. & TOWERS, W.M. (1976). "Attitudes vs. cognitions: explaining long-term Watergate effects." Paper presented to the Political Communication Division, International Communica- tion Association, Portland, Ore. BISHOP, G.F. (1975). "Resolution and tolerance of cognitive inconsis- tency in a field situation: change in attitude and beliefs following the Watergate affair." Psychological Reports, 36:747-753. BLUMLER, J.G. & KATZ, E. (Eds.) (1974). The Uses of Mass Communica- tion. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. BLUMLER, J.G. & McQUAIL, D. (1969). Television in Politics: Its Uses and Influence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 206 207 BOGART, L. (1965). "The mass media and the blue-collar worker." In A. Bennett & W Gomberg (Eds.), Blue-Collar World: Studies of the American Worker. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. CATTELL, R.F. (1965). "Factor analysis: an introduction to essen- tials. (I) the purpose and underlying models, (II) the role of factor analysis in research." Biometrics, 21:190-215, 415-435. CHAFFEE, S.H. (Ed.) (1975). American Politics Quarterly, 3. Special issue devoted to the Watergate experience: lessons for empir- ical theory. CHAFFEE, S.H., & BECKER, L.B. (1975). "Young voters' reactions to early Watergate issues." American Politics Quarterly, 3:360-385. CHAFFEE, S.H., STAMM, K., GUERRERO, J. & TIPTON, L. (1969). "Experi- ments on Cognitive Discrepancies and Communication." Journalism Monographs, 14. COHEN, B.C. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY SERVICE. (1973). Watergate: Chronology of a Crisis, Vol. 1. Compiled by W.B. Dickinson, Jr. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY SERVICE. (1974). Watergate: .Chronology of a Crisis, Vol. 2. Compiled by J.L. Goldstein. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY SERVICE. (1975). Watergate: Chronology of a Crisis, Vol. 3. Compiled by M. Cross & E. Witt. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. COOMBS, C.H. (1953). "Theory and methods of social measurement." In L. Festinger & D. Katz (Eds.),Research Methods in the Be- havioral Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. DANIELSON, W.A. & STEMPEL, C.H. III. (1958). "News-seeking behavior on two college campuses." Paper presented to Association for Education in Journalism,.Columbia, Mo. DARR, R.K. & ABIBA, O. (1974). Watergate Bibliography. River Falls, Wisc.: River City Research. DAVIS, D., KRAUS, S. & LEE, J. (1975). "Opinion formation process during the resignation and pardon of Richard Nixon: a pilot study of critical events analysis." Paper presented to World Association for Public Opinion Research Congress, Montreux, Switzerland. 208 EDELSTEIN, A.S. (1973). "Communication and decision-making in Yugoslavia and the United States." Final Report, Seattle. (Mimeographed.) . EDELSTEIN, A.S. (1974). Media Credibility and the Believability of Watergate. An ANPA News Research Center Study. EDELSTEIN, A.S. & TEFFT, D.F. (1974). "Media credibility and respondent credulity with respect to Watergate." Communica- tion Research, 1:426-439. FESTINGER, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson. FESTINGER, L. (1964). Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. GREENBERG, B.S. (1964a). "Diffusion of news of the Kennedy assassi- nation." Public Opinion Quarterly, 28:225-232. GREENBERG, B.S. (1964b). "Person-to-person communication in the diffusion of news events." Journalism Quarterly, 41:489-494. GREENBERG, B.S. & PARKER, E.B., (Eds.) (1965). The Kennedy Assassi- nation and the American Public: Social Communication in Crisis. Stanford: Stanford University Press. GRUPP, F.W., JR. (1970). "Newscast avoidance among political activists." Public Opinion Quarterly, 34:262-266. HAWKINS, R.P., PINGREE, S. & ROBERTS, D.F. (1975). "Watergate and political socialization: the inescapable event." American Politics Quarterly, 3:406-422. HEIDER, F. (1946). "Attitudes and cognitive organization." Journal of Psychology, 21:107-112. HEIDER, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley. KATZ, E., BLUMLER, J.G. & GUREVITCH, M. (1973). "Uses and gratifica- tions research." Public Opinion Quarterly, 37:509-523. KATZ, 12., BLUMLER, J.G. 6. GUREVITCH, M. (1974). "Utilization of mass communication by the individual: an overview." In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of'Mass Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. KATZ, 13., GUREVITCH, M. & HAAS, H. (1973). "On the use of mass media for important things." American Sociological Review, 38:164-181. 209 KLAPPER, J.T. (1960). The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press. KLINE, F.G., MILLER, P.V. &'MORRISON, A.J. (1974). "Adolescents and family planning information: an exploration of audience needs and media effects." In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. KRAUS, S. & CHAFFEE, S.H. (Eds.) (1974). Communication Research, 1. A special issue devoted to the Ervin Committee hearings and communication research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. KRAUS, S. & CHAFFEE, S.H. (1974). "The Ervin Committee hearings and communication research." In S. Kraus & S.H. Chaffee (Eds.), Communication Research, 1. A special issue devoted to the Ervin Committee hearings and communication research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. KRAUS, S., DAVIS, D. & LEE, J. (1975). "Public opinion and the resignation of Richard Nixon: a study of media credibility and political cross-pressure." A paper presented to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Itasca, Ill. LASSWELL, H. (1948). "The structure and function of communications in society." In L. Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas. New York: Harper. LAZARSFELD, P.F., BERELSON, B.R. & GAUDET, H. (1948). The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press. LAZARSFELD, P.F. & MERTON, R.K. (1952). "Mass communication, popular taste and organized social action." In G. Swanson, T. Newcomb & E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology, Rev. Ed. New York: Holt. LIPPMANN, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Free Press. LUNDBERG, D. & HULTEN, O. (1968). Individen och Massmedia. Stockholm: EFI. MACCOBY, N. 6 MACCOBY, E.E. (1961). "Homeostatic theory in attitude change." Public Opinion Quarterly, 25:538-545. MacDONALD, A.P., JR. & MAJUMDER, R.K. (1973). "On the resolution and tolerance of cognitive inconsistency in another naturally occurring event: attitudes and beliefs following the Senator Eagleton incident." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3:132-143. McCOMBS, M.E. (1968). "Consequences of education: media use and political interest." Paper presented to Association for Education in Journalism. 210 MCCOMBS, M.E. (1972). "Mass communication in political campaigns: information, gratification and persuasion." In F.G. Kline & P.J. Tichenor (Eds.), Current Perspectives in Mass Communi- cation Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. MCCOMBS, M.E. 6 MULLINS, LE. (1973). "Consequences of education: media exposure, political interest and information-seeking orientations." Mass Comm Review, 1:27-31. McCOMBS, M.E. & SHAW, D.L. (1972). "The agenda-setting function of the mass media." Public Opinion Quarterly, 36:176-187. MCGUIRE, W.J. (1960). "A syllogistic analysis of cognitive rela- tionships." In C.I. Hovland & M.J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude Organization and Change. New Haven: Yale Univer- sity Press. MCGUIRE, W.J. (1974). "Psychological motives and communication grati- fication." In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of'Mass Communications. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. McLEOD, J.M. & BECKER, L.B. (1974). "Testing the validity of grati- fication measures through political effects analysis." In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. McLEOD, J.M., BECKER, L.B. 6 BYRNES, J.E. (1974). "Another look at the agenda setting function of the press." Communication Research, 1:131-166. McQUAIL, D., BLUMLER, J.G. & BROWN, J.R. (1972). "The television audience: a revised perspective." In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communications. Harmondsworth: Penguin. MOSER, C.A. & KALTON, G. (1972). Survey Methods in Social Investi- gation, 2nd Ed. New York: Basic Books. NEWCOMB, T.M. (1953). "An approach to the study of communicative acts." Psychological Review, 60:393-404. NIE, N.H., HULL, C.H., JENKINS, J.G., STEINBRENNER, K. 6 BENT, D.H. (1975). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), 2nd Ed. New York: ‘McGraw-Hill. NORDENSTRENG, K. (1969). "Consumption of mass media in Finland." Gazette, 15:249-60.. NUNNALLY, J.G. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. O'KEEFE, G.J. (1975). "Political campaigns and mass communication research." In S.H. Chaffee (Ed.), Political Communication: Issues and Strategies for Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 211 O'KEEFE, G.J. & MENDELSOHN, H. (1974). "Voter selectivity, partisan- ship and the challenge of Watergate." Communication Research, 1:345-367. OSGOOD, C.E. & TANNENBAUM, P.H. (1955). "The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change." Psychological Review, 62:42-55. . PELED, T. & KATZ, E. (1974). "Media functions in wartime: the Israel home front in October 1973." In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications. Beverly Hills: Sage Publica- tions. ROBINSON, M.J. (1972). Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise: The Case of The Selling of the Pentagon. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. ROBINSON, M.J. (1974). "The impact of the televised Watergate hear- ings." Journal of Communication, 24(2):17-30. ROSENBERG, K.C. & ROSENBERG, J.K. (1975). Watergate: An Annotated Bibliography. Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. ROSENBERG, M.J. (1960). "An analysis of affective-cognitive consis- tency." In C.I. Hovland & M.J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude Organization and Change. New Haven: Yale University Press. ROSENGREN, K.E. (1974). "Uses and gratifications: a paradigm out- lined." In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. SARGENT, L.W. (1965). "Communicator image and news reception." Journalism Quarterly, 42:35-42. SCHRAMM, W. (1965). "Communication in crisis." In B.S. Greenberg & E.B. Parker (Eds.), The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public: Social Communication in Crisis. Stanford: Stanford University Press. SEARS, D.0. & FREEDMAN, J.L. (1967). "Selective exposure to informa- tion: a critical review.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 31:194- 213. SHERIF, M. & HOVLAND, C.I. (1961). Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven: Yale University Press. SILVERMAN, I. (1971). "On the resolution and tolerance of cognitive inconsistency in a natural-occurring event: attitudes and belief following the Senator Edward M. Kennedy incident." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17:171-178. 212 SOHN, H.L. (1975). "News diffusion in the Nixon resignation story: a study of media use patterns." Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for.Education in Journalism, Ottawa. STONE, V.A. 6 BEELL, T.L. (1975). "To kill a messenger: a case of congruity." Journalism Quarterly, 52:111-114. TAN, A.S. (1973). "A role theory: a dissonance analysis of message content preferences." Journalism Quarterly, 50:278-284. TANNENBAUM, P.H. (1968). "The congruity principle: retrospective reflections and recent research." In R.P. Abelson, et al., (Eds.), Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally. TANNENBAUM, P.H. & GENGEL, R.W. (1966). "Generalization of attitude change through congruity principle relationships." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3:229-304. TORGERSON, W.S. (1958). Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. WEAVER, D.H., MCCOMBS, M.E. 6 SPEllMAN, C. (1975) "Watergate and the media: a case study of agenda-setting." American Politics Quarterly, 3:458-472. WESTLEY, B.H. & BARROW, L.C., JR. (1959). "An investigation of news- seeking behavior." Journalism Quarterly, 36:431-438. WESTLEY, B.H. & MacLEAN, M.S. JR. (1957). "A conceptual model for communications research." Journalism Quarterly, 34:31-38. WRIGHT, C. (1960). "Functional analysis and mass communication." Public Opinion Quarterly, 24:605-620. "1111111'11111?“