Spiraleffekte in der neuen Medienwelt: Wählermobilisierung und die Nutzung politischer Online- und Offline-Information im Bundestagswahlkampf 2013

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Bibliographische Infos

Cover der Ausgabe: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Jahrgang 8 (2019), Heft 1
Open Access Vollzugriff

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Jahrgang 8 (2019), Heft 1

Autor:innen:
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyrightjahr
2019
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Kapitelinformationen

Open Access Vollzugriff

Jahrgang 8 (2019), Heft 1

Spiraleffekte in der neuen Medienwelt: Wählermobilisierung und die Nutzung politischer Online- und Offline-Information im Bundestagswahlkampf 2013

Autor:innen:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Kapitelvorschau:

Trägt die Nutzung politischer Information im Internet zur Mobilisierung der Wählerinnen und Wähler bei? Dieser Frage geht diese Studie nach und vergleicht dabei Online-Quellen und Offline-Quellen der Wahlberechtigten wie auch ihre Involvierung in Wahl und Wahlkampf und ihre Wahlabsicht. Die bisherige Forschung dazu liefert uneinheitliche Ergebnisse. Das liegt auch daran, dass sie zumeist auf Daten und Analyseverfahren beruht, die keine eindeutigen Aussagen zulassen. Im Unterschied dazu verwendet diese Studie ein neuartiges Analysemodell, das die Überprüfung von kausalen Beziehungen mit sehr viel mehr Evidenz ermöglicht als herkömmliche statistische Instrumente. Datenbasis ist eine dreiwellige Panelbefragung aus der Endphase des Bundestagswahlkampfs 2013. Theoretischer Ausgangspunkt ist Slaters Spiralmodell der Wechselwirkungen, das ein Konzept der Erie-County-Studie aus den 1940er Jahren weiterentwickelt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass offensichtlich ein Kernbefund der frühen Wahlforschung auch in der neuen Medienwelt gilt: Zwischen Informationsnutzung und Mobilisierung gibt es Wechselwirkungen und positive Rückkopplungen mit kumulativen Effekten. Diese Spiralprozesse sind für das Internet allerdings weniger deutlich ausgeprägt als für Offline-Quellen wie politische Gespräche in der Familie und Nachrichten im öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehen. Der Beitrag diskutiert mögliche Erklärungen dafür wie auch für Unterschiede zwischen einzelnen Indikatoren der Mobilisierung.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  3. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  4. Atkin, C. K. (1972). Anticipated communication and mass media information-seeking. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  5. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 188. https://doi.org/10.1086/267991 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall Series in Social Learning Theory. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  7. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall Series in Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  9. Bandura, A. (2009). A social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  10. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 94–124). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  11. Baumgartner, S. E., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). The influence of descriptive and injunctive peer norms on adolescents’ risky sexual online behavior. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 14, 753–758. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0510 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  12. Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-disclosure in social media: Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  13. Journal of Communication, 64, 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12106 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  14. Berger, C. R. (2008). Interpersonal communication. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2473–2486). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  15. Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  16. Carcioppolo, N., & Jensen, J. D. (2012). Perceived historical drinking norms and current Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  17. drinking behavior: Using the theory of normative social behavior as a framework for assessment. Health Communication, 27, 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.640973 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  18. Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod, J. M. (1973). Individual vs. social predictors of information seeking. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 50, 237–245. https://doi. org/10.1177/107769907305000204 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  19. Chaffee, S. H., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The end of mass communication? Mass Communication and Society, 4, 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0404_3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  20. Chia, S. C. (2006). How peers mediate media influence on adolescents’ sexual attitudes and sexual behavior. Journal of Communication, 56, 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1460-2466.2006.00302.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  21. Chung, A., & Rimal, R. N. (2016). Social norms: A review. Review of Communication Research, 2016, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2016.04.01.008 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  22. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  23. Cohen, J., & Tsfati, Y. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence on strategic voting. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  24. Communication Research, 36, 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333026 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  25. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629– 636. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  26. Dunlop, S. M., Kashima, Y., & Wakefield, M. (2010). Predictors and consequences of conversations about health promoting media messages. Communication Monographs, 77, 518–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.502537 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  27. Ellison, N. B., & boyd, d. m. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (1st ed., 151-172). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  28. Epstein, R. (1984). The principle of parsimony and some applications in psychology. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 119–130. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  29. Fine, G. A. (2001). Enacting norms: Mushrooming and the culture of expectations and explanations. In M. Hechter & K.-D. Opp (Eds.), Social norms (pp. 139–164). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  30. Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13, 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003. tb00287.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  31. Flanagin, A. J. (2017). Online social influence and the convergence of mass and interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 43, 450–463. https://doi. org/10.1111/hcre.12116 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  32. Geber, S., Baumann, E., Czerwinski, F. & Klimmt, C. (2019). The effects of social norms among peer groups on risk behavior: A multilevel approach to differentiate perceived and collective norms. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0093650218824213 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  33. Geber, S., Baumann, E. & Klimmt, C. (2017). Where do norms come from? Peer communication as a factor in normative social influences on risk behavior. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217718656 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  34. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  35. Good, K. D. (2013). From scrapbook to Facebook: A history of personal media assemblage and archives. New Media & Society, 15, 557–573. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444812458432 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  36. Grube, J. W., Morgan, M., & McGree, S. T. (1986). Attitudes and normative beliefs as predictors of smoking intentions and behaviours: A test of three models. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00707.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  37. Gunther, A. C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D. L. G., Liebhart, J. L., & Dillard, J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  38. Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The Influence of presumed influence. Journal of Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  39. Communication, 53, 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  40. Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Marlow, C., & Rainie, L. (2012). Why most Facebook users Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  41. get more than they give: The effect of Facebook ‘power users’ on everybody else. Retrieved from Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project website: http:// www.pewinternet.org/2012/02/03/why-most-facebook-users-get-more-than-they-give/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  42. Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  43. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  44. Hogg, M. A., & Tindale, R. S. (2005). Social identity, influence, and communication in small groups. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Language as social action. Intergroup communication. Multiple perspectives (pp. 141–164). New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  45. Humphreys, L., Pape, T. von, & Karnowski, V. (2013). Evolving mobile media: Uses and conceptualizations of the mobile Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12019 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  46. Johnson, B. K. (2014). Selective exposure to prestigious and popular media. Anticipated taste performances and social influences on media choice (PhD Thesis). Ohio State University. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu139773 4249&disposition=inline Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  47. Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1002–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610009 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  48. Kashima, Y., Wilson, S., Lusher, D., Pearson, L. J., & Pearson, C. (2013). The acquisition of perceived descriptive norms as social category learning in social networks. Social Networks, 35, 711–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.06.002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  49. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  50. Klimmt, C., Hefner, D., Reinecke, L., Rieger, D., & Vorderer, P. (2018). The permanently online and permanently connected mind: Mapping the cognitive structures behind mobile internet use. In P. Vorderer, D. Hefner, L. Reinecke, & C. Klimmt (Eds.), Permanently online, permanently connected. Living and communicating in a POPC world (pp. 18–28). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  51. Krcmar, M., & Strizhakova, Y. (2009). Uses and gratifications as media choice. In T. Hartmann (Ed.), Media choice. A theoretical and empirical overview (pp. 53–69). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  52. Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/15.2.127 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  53. Lapinski, M. K., Zhuang, J., Koh, H., & Shi, J. (2017). Descriptive norms and involvement in health and environmental behaviors. Communication Research, 44, 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215605153 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  54. Lee, C. M., Geisner, I. M., Lewis, M. A., Neighbors, C., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Social motives and the interaction between descriptive and injunctive norms in college student drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 714–721. https://doi. org/10.15288/jsad.2007.68.714 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  55. Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 331–339. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  56. Lee, E. W. J., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). Explicating problematic social network sites use: A review of concepts, theoretical frameworks, and future directions for communication theorizing. New Media & Society, 19, 308–326. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444816671891 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  57. Litt, D. M., & Stock, M. L. (2011). Adolescent alcohol-related risk cognitions: The roles of social norms and social networking sites. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 708– 713. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024226 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  58. Liu, H. (2007). Social network profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00395.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  59. Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  60. Society, 10, 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808089415 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  61. Lynch, A. D., Coley, R. L., Sims, J., Lombardi, C. M., & Mahalik, J. R. (2015). Direct and interactive effects of parent, friend and schoolmate drinking on alcohol use trajectories. Psychology & Health, 30, 1183–1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2015.1040017 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  62. Manning, M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 649–705. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X393136 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  63. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. Mead, E. L., Rimal, R. N., Ferrence, R., & Cohen, J. E. (2014). Understanding the sources of normative influence on behavior: The example of tobacco. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 115, 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.030 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  64. Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2010). What is normative in health communication research on norms? A review and recommendations for future scholarship. Health Communication, 25, 544–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.496704 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  65. Montaño, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior. Theory, research, and practice (pp. 95–124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  66. Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151003735018 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  67. Nagler, R. H. (2017). Measurement of media exposure. In J. Matthes (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell-ICA international encyclopedias of communication. The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 1–21). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0144 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  68. Neighbors, C., LaBrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., Lewis, M. A., Lee, C. M., Desai, S., Kilmer, J. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  69. R. & Larimer, M. E. (2010). Group identification as a moderator of the relationship between perceived social norms and alcohol consumption. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019944 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  70. Paek, H.-J. (2009). Differential effects of different peers: Further evidence of the peer proximity thesis in perceived peer influence on college students’ smoking. Journal of Communication, 59, 434–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01423.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  71. Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. Annals of the International Communication Association, 8, 20–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  72. 1984.11678570 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  73. Paluck, E. L., & Shepherd, H. (2012). The salience of social referents: A field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 899–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030015 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  74. Park, H. S., & Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intention: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33, 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00296.x Parks, M. R. (2007). Personal relationships and personal networks. LEA’s Series on Per- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  75. sonal Relationships. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  76. Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  77. Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0104_4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  78. Real, K., & Rimal, R. N. (2007). Friends talk to friends about drinking: Exploring the role of peer communication in the theory of normative social behavior. Health Communication, 22, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701454254 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  79. Rimal, R. N. (2008). Modeling the relationship between descriptive norms and behaviors: A test and extension of the theory of normative social behavior (TNSB). Health Communication, 23, 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230801967791 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  80. Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  81. Communication Theory, 25, 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12080 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  82. Rimal, R. N., Lapinski, M. K., Turner, M. M., & Smith, K. C. (2011). The attribute-centered approach for understanding health behaviors: Initial ideas and future research directions. Studies in Communication Sciences, 11, 15–34. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  83. Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13, 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/13.2.184 Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A test Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  84. of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32, 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205275385 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  85. Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  86. Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  87. Shepherd, H. R. (2017). The structure of perception: How networks shape ideas of norms. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  88. Sociological Forum, 32, 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12317 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  89. Shulman, H. C., & Levine, T. R. (2012). Exploring social norms as a group-level phenomenon: Do political participation norms exist and influence political participation on college campuses? Journal of Communication, 62, 532–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1460-2466.2012.01642.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  90. Smith, J. R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Do as we say and as we do: The interplay of descriptive and injunctive group norms in the attitude-behaviour relationship. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 647–666. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X269748 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  91. Southwell, B. G., & Yzer, M. C. (2007). The roles of interpersonal communication in mass media campaigns. Communication Yearbook, 31, 419–462. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  92. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33– 47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  93. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  94. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  95. Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  96. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10, 181–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12022 Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (2000). Attitude-behavior relations: Social iden- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  97. tity and group membership. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Applied social research. Attitudes, behavior, and social context. The role of norms and group membership (2nd ed., pp. 67–94). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  98. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2129853 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  99. Uski, S., & Lampinen, A. (2016). Social norms and self-presentation on social network sites: Profile work in action. New Media & Society, 18, 447–464. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444814543164 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  100. Vreese, C. H. de, & Neijens, P. (2016). Measuring media exposure in a changing communications environment. Communication Methods and Measures, 10, 69–80. https://doi.or g/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150441 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  101. Walther, J. B., Carr, C. T., Choi, S., DeAndrea, D. C., Kim, J., Tong, S. T., & van der Heide, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  102. B. (2010). Interaction of interpersonal, peer, and media influence sources online: A research agenda for technology convergence. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self. Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 17–38). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  103. Waples, D., Berelson, B., & Bradshaw, F. R. (1940). What reading does to people: A summary of evidence on the social effects of reading and a statement of problems for research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  104. White, K. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1994). Safer sex behavior: The role of attitudes, norms, and control factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 2164–2192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb02378.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  105. Wirth, W., Pape, T. von, & Karnowski, V. (2008). An integrative model of mobile phone appropriation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 593–617. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00412.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  106. Woolf, J., Rimal, R. N., & Sripad, P. (2014). Understanding the influence of proximal networks on high school athletes’ intentions to use androgenic anabolic steroids. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2013-0046 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  107. Wright, C. R. (1960). Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1086/266976 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  108. Yanovitzky, I., & Rimal, R. N. (2006). Communication and normative influence: An introduction to the special issue. Communication Theory, 16, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-2885.2006.00002.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6
  109. Albarran, A. B. (2013). Management of electronic and digital media. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  110. Altmeppen, K.-D. (2006). Journalismus und Medien als Organisationen: Leistungen, Strukturen und Medienmanagement [Journalism and media as organizations: performance, structures and media management]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  111. Altmeppen, K.-D. (2007). Differenzierung und Distinktion: Journalismus, unterhaltender Journalismus, Unterhaltungsproduktion [Differentiation and distinction: journalism, entertaining journalism, entertainment production]. In A. Scholl, R. Renger, & B. Blöbaum (Eds.), Journalismus und Unterhaltung. Theoretische Ansätze und empirische Befunde (pp. 133–156). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  112. Ballering, T. (2000). Strategische Konzepte zur Bildung einer dynamischen Unternehmensarchitektur. Ein Ansatz zur Bewältigung der aktuellen Herausforderungen an das strategische Denken und Handeln der Unternehmen [Strategic concepts for developing a dynamic business architecture. An approach to overcome current challenges of companies’ strategic thinking and acting]. Frankfurt a. M. et al., Germany: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  113. Beck, K. (2013). Kommunikationswissenschaft [Communication science]. Konstanz et al., Germany: UVK. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  114. Bode, J. (1997). Der Informationsbegriff in der Betriebswirtschaft [The notion of information in business administration]. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 49(5), 449–468. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  115. Brack, A. (2013). Das strategische Management von Medieninhalten: Gestaltungsoptionen für die langfristige Erfolgssicherung in Medienmärkten [Strategic management of media content: design options to secure the long-term success in media markets]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  116. Breyer-Mayländer, T., & Werner, A. (2003). Handbuch der Medienbetriebslehre [Handbook of media management]. München, Germany: Oldenbourg. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  117. Czichon, M., & Schlütz, D. (2016). Die fiktionale TV-Serie als kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Forschungsgegenstand – Bestandsaufnahme und Zukunftsperspektiven [Fictional TV series as research subject in communication science – stocktaking and future perspectives]. In M. Czichon, C. Wünsch, & M. Dohle (Eds.), Rezeption und Wirkung fiktionaler Medieninhalte (pp. 11–38). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  118. Detering, D. (2001). Ökonomie der Medieninhalte: Allokative Effizienz und soziale Chancengleichheit in den Neuen Medien [Economics of media content: allocative efficiency and equal social opportunities in New Media]. Münster, Germany: LIT. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  119. Diehl, S., & Karmasin, M. (Eds.). (2013). Media and convergence management. Berlin/ Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  120. Dommering. E. J. (2008). Comments on Television without Frontiers Directive (TWFD), Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) and EC Treaty law and Article 10 ECHR. In O. Castendyk, E. J. Dommering, & A. Scheuer (Eds.), European Media Law, Alphen a/d Rijn: Kluwer Law International, para. 2, 3, and 10. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  121. Eisenbeis, U. (2007). Ziele, Zielsysteme und Zielkonfigurationen von Medienunternehmen. Ein Beitrag zur Realtheorie der Medienunternehmen [Targets, target systems and target configurations of media companies. A contribution to media companies´ realistic theory]. München/Mering, Germany: Rainer Hampp. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  122. Ernst, S. (2015). Rechtliche Dimension des Journalismus: Redaktionelle Verantwortung und User Generated Content [Legal dimensions of journalism: Editorial responsibility and user generated content]. In T. Breyer-Mayländer (Ed.), Vom Zeitungsverlag zum Medienhaus. Geschäftsmodelle in Zeiten der Medienkonvergenz (pp. 111–120), Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  123. Farber, A. (2017, March 1). YouTube unveils US TV service. Broadcast. Retrieved from http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/youtube-unveils-us-tv-service/5115455.article?b locktitle=News&contentID=44553 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  124. Freedman, D. (2008). The politics of media policy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Friedrichsen, M., Grüblbauer, J., & Haric, P. (2015). Strategisches Management von Medi- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  125. enunternehmen. Einführung in die Medienwirtschaft mit Case-Studies [Strategic management of media companies. Introduction to media economy with case studies]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  126. Gerpott, T. J. (2006). Wettbewerbsstrategien – Überblick, Systematik und Perspektiven [Competitive strategies – Overview, systematics and perspectives]. In C. Scholz (Ed.), Handbuch Medienmanagement (pp. 305–355), Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  127. Gibbert, M., & Durand, T. (2006). Strategic networks. Learning to compete. Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  128. Gläser, M. (2014). Medienmanagement [Media management]. München, Germany: Vahlen. Hass, B. H. (2002). Geschäftsmodelle von Medienunternehmen: Ökonomische Grundlagen und Veränderungen durch neue Informations- und Kommunikationstechnik [Media companies’ business models: economic principles, and changes through new informa- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  129. tion and communication technology]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  130. Heinrich, J. (2001). Medienökonomie: Mediensystem, Zeitung, Zeitschrift, Anzeigenblatt [Media economics: media system, newspaper, magazine, advertiser]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  131. Hess, T. (2014). What is a media company? A reconceptualization for the online world. International Journal on Media Management, 16(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1424 1277.2014.906993 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  132. Heinrich, J. (Ed.). (1994). Medienökonomie. Band 1: Mediensystem, Zeitung, Zeitschrift, Anzeigenblatt [Media economics]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  133. Hollifield, A. C., Leblanc Wicks, J., Sylvie, G., & Lowrey, W. (2016). Media management. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  134. A casebook approach. New York/London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  135. Hollifield, A. C. (2001). Crossing borders: Media management research in a transnational market environment. Journal of Media Economics, 14(3), 133–146. https://doi. org/10.1207/S15327736ME1403_1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  136. Jarren, O. (2008). Massenmedien als Intermediäre. Zur anhaltenden Relevanz der Massenmedien für die öffentliche Kommunikation [Mass media as intermediaries. On mass media persistent relevance for public communication]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 56(3), 329–346. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  137. Karmasin, M. (2001). Das Medienunternehmen als kommunikationswissenschaftliches und ökonomisches Betrachtungsobjekt. Konturen einer Theorie der Medienunternehmung [The media company as examination object of communication science and economics. Contours of media company theory]. In M. Karmasin, M. Knoche, & C. Winter (Eds.), Medienwirtschaft und Gesellschaft I: Medienunternehmen und die Kommerzialisierung von Öffentlichkeit (pp. 11–20). Münster, Germany: LIT. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  138. Karmasin, M., & Weder, F. (2008). Corporate Communicative Responsibility. Unternehmenskommunikation als Verantwortungsmanagement [Corporate Communicative Responsibility. Corporate communication as responsibility management]. prmagazin, 5, 57–62. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  139. Kiefer, M. L. (2001). Medienökonomik: Einführung in eine ökonomische Theorie der Medien [Media economics: Introduction to an economic theory of media]. München/ Wien, Germany/Austria: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  140. Kiefer, M. L., & Steininger, C. (2014). Medienökonomik [Media economics] München, Germany: Oldenbourg. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  141. Kleinsteuber, H. J., &Thomaß, B. (2004). Medienökonomie, Medienkonzerne und Konzentrationskontrolle [Media economics: media groups and concentration control]. In K.- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  142. D. Altmeppen & M. Karmasin (Eds.), Medien und Ökonomie. Band 2: Problemfelder der Medienökonomie (pp. 123–157). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  143. Kosiol, E. (1972). Die Unternehmung als wirtschaftliches Aktionszentrum [The company as economic action center]. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Germany: Rowohlt. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  144. Kruse, J. (1996). Publizistische Vielfalt und Medienkonzentration zwischen Marktkräften und politische Entscheidungen [Journalistic diversity and media concentration between market forces and political decisions]. In K.-D. Altmeppen (Ed.), Ökonomie der Medien und des Mediensystems: Grundlagen, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven medienökonomischer Forschung (pp. 25–52). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  145. Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  146. London, UK: Tavistock. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  147. Lieberman, D. (2016, December 14). Facebook launches initiative to fund scripted and unscripted videos. Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved from http://deadline.com/2016/12/ facebook-launches-initiative-fund-scripted-unscripted-video-1201870641/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  148. Lieberman, D. (2017, January 12). Apple looks to buy original programming, but how much will it spend? Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved from https://deadline. com/2017/01/apple-buy-original-programming-how-much-spend-1201884019/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  149. Lobigs, F. (2017). Expertise: Paradigmenwechsel in der Ökonomie gesellschaftlich relevanter digitaler Medieninhalte [Expertise: Paradigm shift in the economy of socially relevant media content]. Expertise im Auftrag der Eidgenössischen Medienkommission EMEK. Retrived from https://www.emek.admin.ch/inhalte/Paradigmenwechsel_OEkonomie_digitaler_Medien_Expertise_Lobigs.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  150. Luhmann, N. (1964). Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation [Functions an consequences of formal organization]. Berlin, Germany: Duncker und Humblot. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  151. Maier, M. (2004). Medienunternehmen im Umbruch [Media companies in transition]. In K.-D. Altmeppen & M. Karmasin (Eds.), Medien und Ökonomie, Band 2: Problemfelder der Medienökonomie (pp. 15–39). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  152. Meckel, M., & Scholl, A. (2002). Mediensysteme [Media systems]. In G. Rusch (Ed.), Einführung in die Medienwissenschaft – Konzeptionen, Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen (pp. 155–170). Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  153. Ortmann, G., Sydow, J., & Windeler, A. (1997). Organisation als reflexive Strukturation [Organization as reflective structuration]. In G. Ortmann, J. Sydow, & K. Türk (Eds.), Theorien der Organisation. Die Rückkehr der Gesellschaft (pp. 315–354). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  154. Owen, B. M. (1975). Economics of freedom of expression. Cambridge: Ballinger. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  155. Petski, D. (2017a, February 13). Amazon greenlights kids series ‘Pete The Cat’ & ‘Costume Quest’. Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved from http://deadline.com/2017/02/amazon-orders-kids-series-pete-the-cat-costume-quest-1201910175/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  156. Petski, D. (2017b, February 14). ‘Planet of the apps’ trailer: First look at apple’s app-developer reality show. Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved from http://deadline.com/2017/02/planet-of-the-apps-trailer-apple-app-developer-reality-show-gwyneth-paltrow-jessica-alba-will-i-am-1201911249/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  157. Pew Research Center (2016). News use across social platforms 2016. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ Porter, M. E. (1986). Competition in global industries. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  158. Priest, W. C. (1994). The character of information. Characteristics and properties of information related to issues concerning intellectual property (Report to the Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment). Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.eff.org/pub/Groups/CITS/Reports/cits_nii_framework_ota.report Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  159. Puppis, M. (2010). Einführung in die Medienpolitik [Introduction to media policy]. Konstanz, Germany: UVK. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  160. Rehfeld, N. (2016, March 1): So lehrt Amazon Hollywood das Fürchten [That´s how Amazon teaches Hollywood what fear is]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved from http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/amazon-und-netflix-gegen-kinoverleih-und-fernsehen-14097888.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  161. Schröder, J. (2013, July 4). Warum Verlage Google News unterschätzen [Why publishers underestimate Google News]. Meedia. Retrieved from http://meedia.de/2013/07/04/ warum-verlage-google-news-unterschatzen/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  162. Schulz, W., & Dankert, K. (2016). Die Macht der Informationsintermediäre. Erscheinungsformen, Strukturen und Regulierungsoptionen [The power of information intermediaries. Manifestations, structures and regulatory options]. Bonn, Germany: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  163. Schumann, M., & Hess, T. (2002). Grundfragen der Medienwirtschaft [Fundamental questions of the media industry]. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  164. Shaver, D., Shaver, M. A. (2008). Directions for media management-research in the 21st Century. In A. B. Albarran, S. M. Chan-Olmsted, & M. O. Wirth (Eds), Handbook of Media Management and Economics (pp. 639–654), Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  165. Siegert, G. (2003). Im Zentrum des Taifuns. Die Ökonomisierung als treibende Kraft des medialen Wandels? [In the center of the typhoon. The economization as a driving force of media change?]. Medien Journal, 27(1), 20–30. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  166. Siegert, G. (2002) (Ed.). Medienökonomie in der Kommunikationswissenschaft: Bedeutung, Grundfragen und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Manfred Knoche zum 60. Geburtstag [Media economics in communication science: Meaning, fundamental questions and development prospects. To Manfred Knoche 60th birthday]. Münster et al., Germany: LIT. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  167. Sjurts, I. (2005). Strategien in der Medienbranche: Grundlagen und Fallbeispiele [Strategies in the media industry: Basics and case studies]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  168. Sjurts, I. (2004) (Ed.). Gabler Lexikon Medien Wirtschaft: Medienunternehmen [Gabler lexicon media economy: media company]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  169. Steiner, A., & Jarren, O. (2009). Intermediäre Organisationen unter Medieneinfluss? Zum Wandel der politischen Kommunikation von Parteien, Verbände und Bewegungen [Intermediary organizations under media influence? To the change of the political communication of parties, associations and movements]. In F. Marcinkowski & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Politik in der Mediendemokratie (pp. 251–269), Wiesbaden, Germany: VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  170. Sydow, J. (2010). Management von Netzwerkorganisationen – zum Stand der Forschung [Management of network organizations – on the state of the art]. In J. Sydow (Ed.), Management von Netzwerkorganisationen (pp. 373–426). Wiesbaden, Germany: GWV. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  171. Sydow, J. (1992). Strategische Netzwerke. Evolution und Organisation [Strategic Networks. Evolution and organization]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  172. Syska, P. (2013). Organisation [Organization]. In G. Bentele, H. B. Brosius, & O. Jarren (Eds.), Lexikon Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (pp. 258–259). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  173. Varian, H. R. (1998). Markets for information goods (Paper prepared for Bank of Japan conference, June 18–19, 1998). Retrieved from http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/papers.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  174. Weber, B., & Rager, G. (2006). Medienunternehmen – Die Player auf den Medienmärkten [Media companies – The players in the media markets]. In C. Scholz (Ed.), Handbuch Medienmanagement (pp. 117–143). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  175. Weder, F., & Karmasin, M. (2017). Communicating responsibility: Responsible communication. In S. Diehl, M. Karmasin, B. Mueller, R. Terlutter, & F. Weder (Eds.), Handbook of Integrated CSR Communication (pp. 71–86), Cham, CH: Springer International. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  176. Wirtz, B. W. (2011). Medienmanagement [Media management]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  177. Wirtz, B. W. (2009). Medien- und Internetmanagement [Media and internet management]. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  178. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  179. Wirtz; B. W. (2001). Electronic business. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  180. Witt, F. (1997). Organisation und Gesellschaft in der Theorie der Unternehmung [Organisation and society in the theory of the firm]. In G. Ortmann, J. Sydow, & K. Türk (Eds.), Theorien der Organisation. Die Rückkehr der Gesellschaft (pp. 428–448). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  181. Zerdick, A., Picot, A., Schrape, K., Artopé, A., Goldhammer, K., Lange, U. T., Vierkant, E., López-Escobar, E., & Silverstone, R. (1999). Die Internet-Ökonomie – Strategien für die digitale Wirtschaft [The internet economy – Strategies fort eh digital economy]. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  182. Zydorek, C. (2013). Einführung in die Medienwirtschaftslehre [Introduction to media business studies]. Wiesbaden: Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-29
  183. Bartsch, A. (2012). Emotional gratification in entertainment experience: Why viewers of movies and television series find it rewarding to experience emotions. Media Psychology, 15(3), 267–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.693811 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  184. Bartsch, A. Appel. M., & Storch, D. (2010). Predicting emotions and meta-emotions at the movies: The role of the need for affect in audiences’ experience of horror and drama. Communication Research, 37(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356441 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  185. Beauducel, A., Strobel, A., & Brocke, B. (2003), Psychometrische Eigenschaften und Normen einer deutschsprachigen Fassung der Sensation Seeking-Skalen, Form V [Psychometric properties and norms of a German version of the Sensation Seeking Scales, Form V]. Diagnostica, 49(2), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.49.2.61 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  186. Brewer, W. F. (1996). The nature of narrative suspense and the problem of rereading. In P. Vorderer, H. J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations (pp. 107–127). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  187. Brewer, W. F., & Lichtenstein, E. H. (1982). Stories are to entertain: A structural-affect theory of stories. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(5/6), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(82)90021-2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  188. Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  189. Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  190. Carroll, N. (1990). The philosophy of horror or paradoxes of the heart. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  191. Carruthers, P. (2009a). How we know our own minds: The relationship between mindreading and metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 121–138. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0140525X09000545 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  192. Carruthers, P. (2009b). Mindreading underlies metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000831 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  193. Carruthers, P. (2010). Introspection: Divided and partly eliminated. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80, 76–111. https://doi.org/0.1111/j.1933-1592.2009.00311 Comisky, P., & Bryant, J. (1982). Factors involved in generating suspense. Human Communication Research, 9(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00682.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  194. Dal Cin, S., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175– 191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  195. Eichner, V., Clémence, A., Bangerter, A., Mouton, A., Green, E. G. T., & Gilles, I. (2014). Fundamental beliefs, origin explanations and perceived effectiveness of protection measures: Exploring laypersons’ chains of reasoning about influenza. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24, 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2170 Gerrig, R. J., & Bernardo, A. B. I. (1994). Readers as problem-solvers in the experience of suspense. Poetics, 22, 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)90021-3 Goldman, A. J. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  196. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The “theory theory”. In L. A. Hirschfield & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind. Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  197. Graesser, A. C., Olde, B., & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 229–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  198. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Hoffner, C., & Levine, K. J. (2005). Enjoyment of mediated fright and violence: A meta-analysis. Media Psychology, 7(2), 207–237. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0702_5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  199. Iacobucci, D. & Duhachek, A. (2003). Advancing alpha. Measuring reliability with confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 478–487. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_14 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  200. John, O. R., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.) Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). New York: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  201. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  202. Johnson, B. K., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2014). Spoiler alert! Consequences of narrative spoilers for dimensions of enjoyment, appreciation, and transportation. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214564051 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  203. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Keplinger, C. (2007). Thrilling news: Factors generating suspense during news exposure. Media Psychology, 9(1), 193–210. https://doi. org/10.1080/15213260709336809 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  204. Lang, A. (1996). The logic of using inferential statistics with experimental data from nonprobability samples: Inspired by Cooper, Dupagne, Potter, and Sparks. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40, 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159609364363 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  205. Leavitt, J. D., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2011). Story spoilers don’t spoil stories. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1152–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417007 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  206. Lehne, M., Engel, P., Rohrmeier, M., Menninghaus, W., Jacobs, A. M., & Koelsch, S. (2015). Reading a suspenseful literary text activates brain areas related to social cognition and predictive inference. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0124550. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0124550 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  207. Mazzocco, P. J., Green, M. C., Sasota, J. A., & Jones, N. W. (2010). This story is not for everyone: Transportability and narrative persuasion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610376600 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  208. Meltzer, C., Naab, T. & Daschmann, G. (2012). All student samples differ: Participant selection in communication science. Communication methods and measures, 6(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.732625 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  209. Nabi, R. L., & Clark, S. (2008). Exploring the limits of social cognitive theory: Why negatively reinforced behaviors on TV may be modeled anyway. Journal of Communication, 58(3), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00392.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  210. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2000). A cognitive theory of pretense. Cognition, 74, 115–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00070-0 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  211. Nichols, S., Stich, S., Leslie, A. M., & Klein, D. (1996). Varieties of off-line simulation. In P. Carruthers & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Theories of theories of mind (pp. 39–74). Cambridge, GB/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  212. Ohler, P., & Nieding, G. (1996). Cognitive modeling of suspense-inducing structures in narrative films. In P. Vorderer, H. J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations (pp. 129–145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  213. Prince, G. J. (1988). A dictionary of narratology. Aldershot: Scholar Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  214. Rapaport, W. J., & Shapiro, S. C. (1995). Cognition and fiction. In J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder, & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative. A cognitive science perspective (pp. 107–128). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  215. Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Davies, J., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2004). Implications of the mental models approach for cultivation theory. Communications, 29(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2004.022 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  216. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  217. Shanton, K., & Goldman, A. (2010). Simulation theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.33 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  218. Shevlin, M., Miles, J. N. V., Davies, M. N. O. & Walker, S. (2000). Coefficient alpha. A useful indicator of reliability? Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00093-8 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  219. Slors, M. (2012). The model-model of the theory-theory. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 55, 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2012.716205 Stephenson, M. T. (2003). Examining adolescents’ responses to antimarijuana PSAs. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 343–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  220. tb00843.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  221. Sukalla, F., Bilandzic, H., Hastall, M. R., Busselle, R. W., & Schlögl, S. (2012). Narrative engageability as a trait: The propensity for being engaged with a story. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, 24–28 May 2012, Phoenix, USA. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  222. Taylor, C. L., & Friedman, R. (2015). Sad mood and music choice: Does the self-relevance of the mood-eliciting stimulus moderate song preference? Media Psychology, 18(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.826589 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  223. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  224. Wilkinson M. R., Ball L. J. (2013). Dual processes in mental state understanding: Is theorising synonymous with intuitive thinking and is simulation synonymous with reflective thinking? In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3771–3776). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  225. Zillmann, D. (1980). Anatomy of suspense. In T. H. Tannenbaum (Ed.), The entertainment functions of television (pp. 133–163), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  226. Zillmann, D. (1988) Mood management: Using entertainment to full advantage. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition and affect (pp. 147–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  227. Zillmann, D. (1996). The psychology of suspense in dramatic exposition. In P. Vorderer, H. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  228. J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical explorations (pp. 199–231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  229. Zillmann, D. (2003). Theory of affective dynamics: Emotions and moods. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and emotion (pp. 533–567). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  230. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of Sensation Seeking. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  232. Zuckerman, M. (2006). Sensation seeking in entertainment. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 367–387). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  233. Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, Sybil B. Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.1.139 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  234. Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00513.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  235. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-53
  236. Aarts, K., & Semetko, H. A. (2003). The divided electorate: Media use and political involvement. Journal of Politics, 65, 759–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00211 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  237. Aldrich, J. H., Gibson, R. K., Cantijoch, M., & Konitzer, T. (2016). Getting out the vote in the social media era: Are digital tools changing the extent, nature and impact of party contact- Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  238. ing in elections? Party Politics, 22, 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068815605304 Arbuckle, J. L. (2016). Amos 24.0 user’s guide. Abgerufen von http://www.pdfdrive.net/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  239. ibm-spss-amos-24-users-guide-e34473898.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  240. Arceneaux, K. (2006). Do campaigns help voters learn? A cross-national analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123406000081 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  241. Bartels, L. M. (2006). Three virtues of panel data for the analysis of campaign effects. In H. E. Brady R. & Johnston (Hrsg.), Capturing campaign effects (S. 78–112). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  242. Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., Greene, S., & Huckfeldt, R. (2002). The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential choices. American Political Science Review, 96, 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004239 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  243. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707–731. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  244. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting. A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  245. Bieber, C. (2002). Online-Wahlkampf 2002. Formate und Inhalte digitaler Politikarena. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  246. Media Perspektiven(6), 277–283. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  247. Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political mobilization. Research note on the 1996 election season. Social Science Computer Review, 16, 391–401. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/089443939801600404 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  248. Bimber, B. (2001). Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 53– 67. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400103 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  249. Bimber, B. (2012). Digital media and citizenship. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of political communication (S. 115–126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  250. Blumler, J. G., & McQuail, D. (1968). Television in politics: Its uses and influence. London: Faber and Faber. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  251. Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  252. J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295–298. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature11421 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  253. Boomgaarden, H. G. (2014). Interpersonal and mass mediated political communication. In C. Reinemann (Hrsg.), Political communication (S. 469–488). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  254. Boulianne, S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26, 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600902854363 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  255. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  256. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Second edition. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  257. Cho, J., Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., McLeod, D. M., Scholl, R. M., & Gotlieb, M. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66–88. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  258. Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  259. de Vreese, C. H., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2006). News, political knowledge and participation: The differential effects of news media exposure on political knowledge and participation. Acta Politica, 41, 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500164 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  260. Dimitrova, D. V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Nord, L. W. (2014). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41, 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211426004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  261. Donsbach, W. (1991). Medienwirkung trotz Selektion. Einflussfaktoren auf die Zuwendung zu Zeitungsinhalten. Köln: Böhlau. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  262. Drew, D., & Weaver, D. (2006). Voter learning in a presidential election. Did the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 25–42. https://doi. org/10.1177/107769900608300103 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  263. Dvir-Gvirsman, S., Tsfati, Y., & Menchen-Trevino, E. (2016). The extent and nature of ideological selective exposure online: Combining survey responses with actual web log data from the 2013 Israeli Elections. New Media & Society, 18, 857–877. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444814549041 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  264. Emmer, M., Vowe, G., & Wolling, J. (2011). Bürger online. Die Entwicklung der politischen Online-Kommunikation in Deutschland. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  265. Eveland, W. P., Hutchens, M. J., & Shen, F. (2009). Exposure, attention, or “use” of news? Assessing aspects of the reliability and validity of a central concept in political communication research. Communication Methods and Measures, 3, 223–244. https://doi. org/10.1080/19312450903378925 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  266. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Hayes, A. F., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2005). Understanding the relationship between communication and political knowledge: A model-comparison approach using panel data. Political Communication, 22(4), 423–446. https://doi. org/10.1080/10584600500311345 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  267. Faas, T. (2010). Das fast vergessene Phänomen. Hintergründe der Wahlbeteiligung bei der Bundestagswahl 2009. In K.-R. Korte (Hrsg.), Die Bundestagswahl 2009: Analysen der Wahl-, Parteien-, Kommunikations- und Regierungsforschung (S. 69–86). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  268. Faas, T., & Partheymüller, J. (2011). Aber jetzt?! Politische Internetnutzung in den Bundestagswahlkämpfen 2005 und 2009. In E. J. Schweitzer & S. Albrecht (Hrsg.), Das Internet im Wahlkampf: Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009 (S. 119–135). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  269. Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Hmielowski, J. D., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: Testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming. Journal of Communication, 64, 590–611. https://doi. org/10.1111/jcom.12108 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  270. Finkel, S. E. (1993). Reexamining the “minimal effects” model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics, 55, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132225 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  271. Finkel, S. E. (2008). Linear panel analysis. In Menard, S. (Hrsg.), Handbook of longitudinal research (S. 475–504). Burlington, Mass: Academic Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  272. Flemming, F., & Marcinkowski, F. (2016). Der ‚trap effect‘ des Internet. Ausmaß und Folgen inzidenteller Rezeption von Wahlkampfkommunikation im Internet während des Bundestagswahlkampfs 2013. In Henn, P. & Frieß, D. (Hrsg.), Politische Online-Kommunikation. Voraussetzungen und Folgen des strukturellen Wandels der politischen Kommunikation (S. 193–214). Berlin: digitalcommunicationresearch.de. http://dx.doi. org/10.17174/dcr.v3.9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  273. Früh, W., & Schönbach, K. (1982). Der dynamisch-transaktionale Ansatz. Ein neues Paradigma der Medienwirkungen. Publizistik, 27, 74–88. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  274. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  275. Garrett, R. K., & Stroud, N. J. (2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro- and counterattitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64, 680– 701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12105 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  276. Gibson, R., Cantijoch, M., & Ward, S. (2010). Another false dawn? New media and citizen participation in the 2010 UK General Election. Paper prepared for presentation at the Elections Public Opinion and Parties Conference, University of Essex, September 2010. Abgerufen von http://drupals.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ipol/sites/default/files/ newdocs/Gibson-Cantijoch-Ward_Epop2010.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  277. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64, 612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  278. Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasmann, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the crosslagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20, 102–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0038889 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  279. Heatherly, K. A., Lu, Y., & Lee, J. K. (2017). Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. New Media & Society, 19, 1271– 1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634677 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  280. Hinz, K. (2017). Kandidaten und ihre Unterstützer im Online-Wahlkampf. Die Bundestagswahl 2013 im Web 2.0. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  281. Holt, K., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Ljungberg, E. (2013). Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller? European Journal of Communication, 28, 19–34. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0267323112465369 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  282. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  283. Jungherr, A., & Schoen, H. (2013). Das Internet in Wahlkämpfen. Konzepte, Wirkungen und Kampagnenfunktionen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  284. Keijsers, L. (2016). Parental monitoring and adolescent problem behaviors: How much do we really know? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415592515 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  285. Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 173– 192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  286. Kepplinger, H. M., Brosius, H.-B., & Dahlem, S. (1994). Wie das Fernsehen Wahlen beeinflußt. Theoretische Modelle und empirische Analysen. München: Reinhard Fischer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  287. Kim, Y., Chen, H.-T., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013). Stumbling upon news on the Internet: Effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2013.06.005 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  288. Kim, Y., & Khang, H. (2014). Revisiting civic voluntarism predictors of college students’ political participation in the context of social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.044 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  289. Klinger, U. (2013). Mastering the art of social media. Swiss parties, the 2011 national election and digital challenges. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 717–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782329 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  290. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2012). Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election. Journal of Communication, 62, 628–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01651.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  291. Kruikemeier, S., & Shehata, A. (2017). News media use and political engagement among adolescents: An analysis of virtuous circles using panel data. Political Communication, 34, 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1174760 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  292. Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Unraveling the effects of active and passive forms of political Internet use: Does it affect citizens’ political involvement? New Media & Society, 16, 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444813495163 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  293. Krupp, M., & Breunig, C. (Hrsg.). (2016). Massenkommunikation IX. Eine Langzeitstudie zur Mediennutzung und Medienbewertung 1964–2015. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  294. Kunz, R., Moeller, J., Esser, F., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Comparing political participation in different institutional environments: The mobilizing effect of direct democracy on young people. In M. J. Canel & K. Voltmer (Hrsg.), Comparing political communication across time and space. New studies in an emerging field (S. 117–134). Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  295. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice. How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloane & Pearce. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  296. Maier, J. (2007). Wahlkampfkommunikation und Wahlverhalten. In H. Rattinger, O. W. Gabriel, & J. W. Falter (Hrsg.), Der gesamtdeutsche Wähler. Stabilität und Wandel des Wählerverhaltens im wiedervereinigten Deutschland (S. 386–411). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  297. Maier, J., Faas, T., & Maier, M. (2013). Mobilisierung durch Fernsehdebatten: Zum Einfluss des TV-Duells 2009 auf die politische Involvierung und die Partizipationsbereitschaft. In B. Weßels, H. Schoen, & O. W. Gabriel (Hrsg.), Wahlen und Wähler. Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2009. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  298. Marschall, S., & Schultze, M. (2012). Normalisierung oder Mobilisierung? Die Auswirkungen politischer Online-Kommunikation auf die Wahlbeteiligung am Beispiel einer Internet-Applikation zur Bundestagswahl 2009. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 53, 444–466. https://doi.org/10.5771/0032-3470-2012-3-444 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  299. Martin, J. A. (2015). Mobile news use and participation in elections: A bridge for the democratic divide? Mobile Media & Communication, 3, 230–249. https://doi. org/10.1177/2050157914550664 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  300. Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41, 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  301. Moeller, J., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Spiral of political learning: The reciprocal relationship of news media use and political knowledge among adolescents. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215605148 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  302. Moeller, J., de Vreese, C. H., Esser, F., & Kunz, R. (2014). Pathway to political participation: The influence of online and offline news media on internal efficacy and turnout of first-time voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 58, 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764213515220 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  303. Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1992). Television viewing and voting 1972–1989. Electoral Studies, 11(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(92)90022-X Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  304. Moy, P., Manosevitch, E., Stamm, K., & Dunsmore, K. (2005). Linking dimensions of Internet use and civic engagement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200306 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  305. Nadeau, R., Nevitte, N., Gidengil, E., & Blais, A. (2008). Election campaigns as information campaigns: Who learns what and does it matter? Political Communication, 25, 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802197269 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  306. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1971). Wirkung der Massenmedien. In E. Noelle-Neumann & W. Schulz (Hrsg.), Das Fischer Lexikon Publizistik (S. 316–350). Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  307. Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle. Political communications in postindustrial societies. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  309. Norris, P. (2006). Did the media matter? Agenda-setting, persuasion, and mobilization effects in the British general election campaign. British Politics, 1, 195–221. https://doi. org/10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200022 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  310. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Viking. Partheymüller, J. (2014). Die Dynamik von Mobilisierung und Meinungswandel im Wahlkampf. In R. Schmitt-Beck, H. Rattinger, S. Roßteutscher, B. Weßels, & C. Wolf (Hrsg.), Zwischen Fragmentierung und Konzentration: Die Bundestagswahl 2013 (S. 73–87). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  311. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  312. Partheymüller, J., & Faas, T. (2015). The impact of online versus offline campaign information on citizens’ knowledge, attitudes and political behaviour: Comparing the German Federal Elections of 2005 and 2009. German Politics, 24, 507–524. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09644008.2015.1021789 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  313. Partheymüller, J., & Schäfer, A. (2013). Das Informationsverhalten der Bürger im Bundestagswahlkampf 2013. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Telefonbefragung im Rahmen der nationalen Wahlstudie „German Longitudinal Election Study“. Media Perspektiven(12), 574–588. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  314. Patterson, T. E. (1980). The mass media election. How Americans choose their president. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  315. New York: Praeger. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  316. Pattie, C., Seyd, P., & Whiteley, P. (2003). Citizenship and civic engagement: Attitudes and behaviour in Britain. Political Studies, 51, 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00435 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  317. Preißinger, M., & Meyer, M. (2015). Einstellungszugänglichkeit im Laufe von Wahlkämpfen: Aktivierungseffekte im Kontext der Bundestagswahlen 2005, 2009 und 2013. In T. Faas, C. Frank, & H. Schoen (Hrsg.), Politische Psychologie. PVS-Sonderheft 50 (S. 444–469). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  318. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy. How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  319. Radunski, P. (1980). Wahlkämpfe. Moderne Wahlkampfführung als politische Kommunikation. München: Olzog. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  320. Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of ‘The selling of the Pentagon’. American Political Science Review, 70, 409–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959647 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  321. Rußmann, U. (2012). Kampagnen im Web: Neue Formen der Wahlkampfkommunikation. In Plasser, F. (Hrsg.), Erfolgreich wahlkämpfen. Massenmedien und Wahlkampagnen in Österreich (S. 189–207). Wien: Facultas. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  322. Schäfer, A., Vehrkamp, R., & Gagné, J. F. (2013). Prekäre Wahlen. Milieus und soziale Selektivität der Wahlbeteiligung bei der Bundestagswahl 2013. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Abgerufen von https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/prekaere-wahlen/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  323. Schemer, C. (2012). Reinforcing spirals of negative affects and selective attention to advertising in a political campaign. Communication Research, 39, 413–434. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093650211427141 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  324. Schmitt-Beck, R. (2000). Politische Kommunikation und Wählerverhalten. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  325. Schmitt-Beck, R. (2016). Struggling up the hill: Short-term effects of parties’ contacting, political news and everyday talks on turnout. Party Politics, 22, 227–240. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354068815605675 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  326. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Mackenrodt, C. (2009). Politikvermittlung durch Massenmedien bei der Bundestagswahl 2005: Nutzungsintensität und Einflüsse auf Einstellungen und Wahlverhalten. In F. Marcinkowski & B. Pfetsch (Hrsg.), Politik in der Mediendemokratie (S. 415–446). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  327. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Mackenrodt, C. (2010). Social networks and mass media as mobilizers and demobilizers: A study of turnout at a German local election. Electoral Studies, 29, 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.03.011 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  328. Schmitt-Beck, R., & Wolsing, A. (2010). Der Wähler begegnet den Parteien. Direkte Kontakte mit der Kampagnenkommunikation der Parteien und ihr Einfluss auf das Wählerverhalten bei der Bundestagswahl 2009. In K.-R. Korte (Hrsg.), Die Bundestagswahl 2009. Analysen der Wahl-, Parteien-, Kommunikations- und Regierungsforschung (S. 48–68). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  329. Schoenbach, K., & Lauf, E. (2002). The ‘trap’ effect of television and its competitors. Communication Research, 29, 564–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002236195 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  330. Schulz, W. (2015a). Informationsverhalten und Mobilisierung im Wahlkampf. In M. Jäckel & U. Jun (Hrsg.), Wandel und Kontinuität der politischen Kommunikation (S. 65–82). Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  331. Schulz, W. (2015b). Medien und Wahlen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  332. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  333. Shehata, A. (2014). Game frames, issue frames, and mobilization: Disentangling the effects of frame exposure and motivated news attention on political cynicism and engagement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 157–177. https://doi. org/10.1093/ijpor/edt034 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  334. Skoric, M. M., Zhu, Q., Goh, D., & Pang, N. (2015). Social media and citizen engagement: A meta-analytic review. New Media & Society, 18, 1817–1839. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444815616221 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  335. Skovsgaard, M., Shehata, A., & Strömbäck, J. (2016). Opportunity structures for selective exposure: Investigating selective exposure and learning in Swedish election campaigns using panel survey data. International Journal of Press/Politics, 21, 527–546. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1940161216658157 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  336. Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  337. Slater, M. D. (2015). Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media Psychology, 18, 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.897236 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  338. Song, H., & Boomgaarden, H. (2017). Dynamic spirals put to test: An agent-based model of reinforcing spirals between selective exposure, interpersonal networks, and attitude polarization. Journal of Communication, 67, 256–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcom.12288 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  339. Strömbäck, J., & Johansson, B. (2007). Electoral cycles and the mobilizing effects of elections: A longitudinal study of the Swedish case. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880601132570 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  340. Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30, 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  341. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60, 556–576. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  342. te Poel, F., & Baumgartner, S. (2016). A longitudinal multilevel approach to examine media effects: Introducing the random intercept cross-lagged panel model to communication research. Amsterdam: Department of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam. Abgerufen von https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306037643 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  343. te Poel, F., Baumgartner, S. E., Hartmann, T., & Tanis, M. (2016). The curious case of cyberchondria: A longitudinal study on the reciprocal relationship between health anxiety and online health information seeking. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 43, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.07.009 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  344. Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 106591290305600206 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  345. Valentino, N. A., Banks, A. J., Hutchins, V. L., & Davis, A. K. (2009). Selective exposure in the Internet age: The interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology, 30, 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00716.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  346. Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2017). Political communication in a highchoice media environment: a challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 41, 3–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  347. van Eimeren, B., & Frees, B. (2013). Rasanter Anstieg des Internetkonsums – Onliner fast drei Stunden täglich im Netz. Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2013. Media Perspektiven (7–8), 358–372. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  348. Vissers, S., & Stolle, D. (2014). The Internet and new modes of political participation: online versus offline participation. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 937–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.867356 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  349. Wagner, S. (2004). Die Nutzung des Internet als Medium für die politische Kommunikation: Reinforcement oder Mobilisierung? In F. Brettschneider, J. van Deth, & E. Roller (Hrsg.), Die Bundestagswahl 2002: Analysen der Wahlergebnisse und des Wahlkampfes (S. 120–140). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  350. Weaver, D. (1996). What voters learn from the media. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 546, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716296546001004 Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the 2000 Presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 787– Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  351. 798. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800411 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  352. Wirth, W., & Schweiger, W. (Hrsg.). (1999). Selektion im Internet. Empirische Analysen zu einem Schlüsselkonzept. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  353. Wolfsfeld, G., Yarchi, M., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2015). Political information repertoires and political participation. New Media & Society, 18, 2096–2115. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444815580413 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  354. Woyke, W. (2013). Stichwort: Wahlen. Ein Ratgeber für Wähler, Wahlhelfer und Kandidaten (12., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-77
  355. Adams-Price, C. E., Dalton III, W. T. & Sumrall, R. (2004). Victim blaming in young, middle-aged, and older adults. Variations on the severity effect. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 289–295. http://doi. org/10.1023/B:JADE.0000044532. 83720.74 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  356. Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 259–271. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.036 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  357. Burger, J. M. (1981). Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident. A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 496–512. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  358. Bühner, M. (2011). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Introduction to test and survey construction] (3., aktualisierte Auflage). München: Pearson. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  359. Chen, L., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  360. A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. From the social cognitive and media effects approach. New Media & Society, 19, 1194–1213. http://doi. org/10.1177/1461444816634037 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  361. Correia, I., & Vala, J. (2003). When will a victim be secondarily victimized? The effect of observer’s belief in a just world, victim's innocence and persistence of suffering. Social Justice Research, 16, 379–400. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  362. Deitz, S. R., Blackwell, K. T., Daley, P. C., & Bentley, B. J. (1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372–384. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  363. Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying. A theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/ Journal of Psychology, 217, 182–188. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  364. h t t p : / / d o i. o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 2 7 / 0 0 4 4 - Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  365. 3409.217.4.182 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  366. Ellison, N. B., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends’’: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. http://doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  367. Ferrão, M. C., & Gonçalves, G. (2015). Rape crimes reviewed. The role of observer variables in female victim blaming. Psychological Thought, 8, 47–67. http://doi.org/10.596/psyct.v8i1.131 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  368. Finn, J., (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal violence, 19, 468–483. http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503262083 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  369. Freis, S. D., & Gurung, R. A. (2013). A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 11–19. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030239 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  370. Furnham, A., & Boston, N. (1996). Theories of rape and the just world. Psychology, Crime and Law, 2, 211–229. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  371. Früh, W., & Wünsch, C. (2009). Empathie und Medienempathie. Ein empirischer Konstrukt- und Methodenvergleich [Empathy and media empathy. An empirical comparison of constructs and methods]. Publizistik, 54, 191–215. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  372. Garland, T. S., Policastro, C., Richards, T. N., & Miller, K. S. (2017). Blaming the victim: University student attitudes toward bullying. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26, 69–87. http://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2016. 1194940 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  373. Gracia, E. & Tomás, J. (2014). Correlates of victim-blaming attitudes regarding partner violence against women among the Spanish general population. Violence against women, 20, 26–41. http:// doi.org/10.1177/1077801213520577 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  374. Grubb, A. R., & Harrower, J. (2009). Understanding attribution of blame in cases of rape. An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 63–81. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  375. Halabi, S., Statman, Y., & Dovidio, J. F. (2015). Attributions of responsibility and punishment for ingroup and outgroup members: The role of just world beliefs. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 104–115. http://doi. org/10.1177/1368430214546067 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  376. Harber, K. D., Podolski, P., & Williams, C. H. (2015). Emotional disclosure and victim blaming. Emotion, 15, 603–614. http:// doi.org/10.1177/1368430214546067 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  377. Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 415–419. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  378. Kwan, G. C. E., & Skoric, M. M. (2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  379. Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in school. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 16–25. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.014 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  380. Langos, C. (2012). Cyberbullying. The challenge to define. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 285–289. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  381. 2011.0588 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  382. Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The changing face of bullying. An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  383. 2011.09.004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  384. Leest, U., & Schneider, C. (2013). Cyberlife II. Spannungsfeld zwischen Faszination und Gefahr. Cybermobbing bei Schülerinnen und Schülern. Zweite empirische Bestandsaufnahme bei Eltern, Lehrkräften und Schülern/innen in Deutschland [Cyberlife II. Area of tension between fascination and danger. Cybermobbing of students. Second empirical survey of parents, teachers and students in Germany] Abgerufen von http://bgcmob.de/ f i l e a d m i n / p d f / 2 0 1 6 _ 0 5 _ 0 2 _ Cybermobbing_2017End.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  385. Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process. Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  386. Lila, M., Gracia, E., & Murgui, S. (2013). Psychological adjustment and victimblaming among intimate partner violence offenders. The role of social support and stressful life events. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 5, 147–153. http://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2013a4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  387. Livingstone, S., Olafsson, K., & Staksruf, E. (2013). Risky social networking practices among “underage” users. Lessons for evidence-based policy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 303–320. http://doi.org/10.1111/ jcc4.12012 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  388. MacDonald, C., & Roberts-Pittmann, B. (2010). Cyberbullying among college students. Prevalence and demographic differences. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 2003–2009. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.436 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  389. Miller, A. K., Amacker, A. M., & King, A. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  390. R. (2011). Sexual victimization history and perceived similarity to a sexual assault victim. A path model of perceiver variables predicting victim culpability attribution. Sex Roles, 64, 372–381. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9910-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  391. Obermaier, M., Fawzi, N., & Koch, T. (2015). Bystanderintervention bei Cybermobbing. Warum spezifische Merkmale computervermittelter Kommunikation prosoziales Eingreifen von Bystandern einerseits hemmen und andererseits fördern [Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Why characteristics of computer-mediated communication both prevent and promote prosocial intervention of bystanders]. Studies in Commuication and Media, 4, 28–52. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2015-1-28 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  392. Obermaier, M., Fawzi, N., & Koch, T. (2016). Bystanding or standing by? How the number of bystanders affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying. New Media & Society, 18, 1491–1507. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814563519 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  393. Runions, K. C., & Bak, M. (2015). Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 400–405. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  394. 2014.0670 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  395. Schneider, C., Leest, U., Katzer, C., & Jäger, R. S. (2014). Mobbing und Cybermobbing bei Erwachsenen. Eine empirische Bestandsaufnahme in Deutschland [Mobbing and cybermobbing of adults. An empirical survey in Germany]. Abgerufen von http://www.buendnis-gegen-cybermobbing.de/fileadmin/pdf/studien/studie_mobbing_cybermobbing_erwachsene.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  396. Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution. Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101–113. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  397. Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2012). Processes of cyberbullying, and feelings of remorse by bullies: A pilot study. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 244–259. http://doi.org/10.1 080/17405629.2011.643670 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  398. Smith, C. A. & Frieze, I. H. (2003). Examining rape empathy from the perspective of the victim and the assailant. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 476–498. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  399. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying. Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385. htps://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  400. Staude-Müller, F., Hansen, B., & Voss, M. (2012). How stressful is online victimization? Effects of victim's personality and properties of the incident. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 260–274. http://doi.org/10.1080/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  401. 17405629.2011.643170 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  402. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  403. Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F., & Moya, M. (2011). Victim blaming and exoneration of the perpetrator in domestic violence: The role of beliefs in a just world and ambivalent sexism. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 195–206. http://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011. v14.n1.17 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  404. van den Bos, K., & Maas, M. (2009). On the psychology of the belief in a just world: Exploring experiential and rationalistic paths to victim blaming. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1567–1578. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  405. Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual factors that determine “helping,” “joining in,” and “doing nothing” when witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 383–396. http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21534 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  406. Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 73–79. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115
  407. Weber, M., Ziegele, M., & Schnauber, A. (2013). Blaming the victim: The effects of extraversion and information disclosure on guilt attributions in cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 254–259. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0328 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-115

Zitation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download Kapitel (PDF)

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Per E-Mail teilen

Medien