Socialized for News Media Use: How Family Communication,Information-Processing Needs,and Gratifications Determine Adolescents’ Exposure to News

Abstract

Adolescence is a key period in the development of individuals’ news habits, but little is known about the processes involved in the process of news media socialization. This study proposes an integrated model in which the influence of family communication on motivations and behaviors of adolescents in relation to news consumption occurs through the development of personality traits related to information processing (namely, need for cognition and need to evaluate). Structural equation modeling of data from a representative survey of 2,273 adolescents, aged 13 to 17, provide support for the theorized model, such that concept-oriented communication within families is associated to news exposure indirectly, via personality traits and motivations. Thus, the study provides an initial assessment of one way children are socialized to become news enthusiasts and news avoiders. It also provides empirical evidence that information-processing traits are influenced by family communication patterns, confirming what hitherto was theoretical speculation.

Keywords

youth socialization family communication patterns information processing uses and gratifications news media use

That young people are less informed about public affairs than older people should not come as a surprise. A recent cross-national study in 11 countries, for instance, found that those in the 18 to 34 age group knew, on average, 24 % less hard news than those in the 55+ age group (Papathanassopoulos et al., 2013). After all, young people consume less news than their older counterparts, and this is true across the world (Soroka et al., 2013). What is more surprising, perhaps, is that these generational gaps have not declined despite youth having higher education levels and more access to information and communication technologies than older cohorts. In fact, the continuing decline of legacy media, especially print newspapers, coupled with the proliferation of entertainment media, has raised concerns over the future of news audiences and the expectation of an informed citizenry (Pasek, Kenksi, Romer, & Jamieson, 2006; Prior, 2007). As a consequence, studying how younger citizens acquire and develop the habit of consuming news is becoming ever more pressing.

Prior research suggests that different family, social, and psychological variables influence the behavior of media audiences, making them more or less inclined to consume news and follow the journalistic content that news media provide. But these factors have been examined separately and, oftentimes, in isolation from one another. Some studies focus on contextual factors (e.g., school curricula), others on uses and gratifications (e.g., surveillance), and still others on personality traits (e.g., need for cognition [NC]) and orientations related to public affairs (e.g., sense of civic duty). What is lacking, then, is an examination of several of these factors in tandem and learning how a combination of them might determine the habit of consuming news, especially in adolescence—a key period for individuals’ civic socialization (McLeod, 2000). For this reason, the current study theorizes a model of news media socialization of adolescents through the integration of different variables relevant in the formation of the habit for news, beginning with the influence of family communication patterns. More specifically, drawing from theories of family communication, social psychology, and audiences’ uses and gratifications, we posit and test a structural model that aims to explain the frequency of news exposure among teenagers. In doing so, this study offers an initial evaluation of how adolescents are socialized by their families into consuming news, an important issue for those interested in news use habits, including the news industry and the media literacy programs targeted to students.

Family Communication and Motivations for News Media Use

In a context where traditional media audiences are on the decline, scholars and industry researchers have expressed concerns about young people’s drive—or lack thereof—to seek and consume hard news, arguing that if the mass media industry does not reach these young audiences now, it will lose them forever (E. Huang, 2009). Given the well-established and strong correlation between consuming news about public affairs and the political socialization process, there is also apprehension about young people’s ability to make informed decisions as citizens or even engage in the political process, more so when younger generations’ lack of interest in the news continues as they grow older—a cohort effect (Buckingham, 2000).

Nevertheless, media consumption remains an integral part in adolescents’ lives. Indeed, the lives of teenagers are deeply mediated, as media—especially digital platforms—are central to identity formation, social relationships, and life outside school. Studies in different countries show that adolescents devote up to 7 hr per day to watch television, hear radio, read magazines and newspapers, or use social media (Condeza, Bachmann, & Mujica, 2014; Pasek et al., 2006), albeit not necessarily searching for hard news. Several scholars argue that the declining consumption of traditional media does not inevitably mean that young people are not interested in news content (Costera Meijer, 2007; Marchi, 2012). However, empirical and anecdotal evidence shows that only a small portion of young audiences read newspapers or watch television news.

Young people do not necessarily develop an automatic interest for public affairs information as they move into adulthood. Rather, they develop the basic motives and skills that are needed to valuing and engaging with news media, including the abilities to understand and process journalistic information. This entails the existence of contexts in which they can explore their ideas, form and express opinions, and develop attitudes and understandings (Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 2005; McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002; Shah, McLeod, & Lee, 2009). In this process, individuals construct and coconstruct with others’ explanations and stories that make sense of experience and locate them in a social, cultural, and historical context (Haste, 2004). Much of that socialization occurs during adolescence, a key developmental period in which individuals form attitudes, behaviors, competences, and habits that will shape their adult life (Borah, Edgerly, Vraga, & Shah, 2013; Boyd, Zaff, Phelps, Weiner, & Lerner, 2011)—including news consumption habits. Still, teenagers remain “an understudied demographic in the research on youth and news media” (Marchi, 2012, p. 246), with most research focusing in older cohorts (e.g., college students), or including adolescents into broader age categories, such as young adults.

Along with school, peers, and media themselves, a key agent in adolescents’ socialization is their family, particularly parent–child interactions. This does not mean that adolescents are passively socialized. On the contrary, these young individuals actively construct and develop their own identity, and the socialization process within a family includes both top-down and trickle-up influences (Correa, 2014; McDevitt, 2005; McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002). Few people emerge from adolescence as a fully active adult, and much of that socialization occurs “as shared experiences within the home, not privately within the mind of a single person” (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002, p. 285). Furthermore, young people’s interests and information-seeking habits are not static, and change as they mature and assert their autonomy (Hively & Eveland, 2009; McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002; York & Scholl, 2015).

That said, empirical evidence shows that parents do play a major role in their children’s socialization, and the context in which family dynamics occur can have significant impact on children (Austin & Pinkleton, 2001). Examinations of youth socialization also illustrate the relevance of parental mediation, involvement, supervision, and sheer example with regard to family interactions and media content, sometimes offering rival explanations (for a summary, see York & Scholl, 2015). Parents often encourage critical analysis of media content, establish rules about certain media experiences, or share media exposure with their children, thus influencing media use patterns in different ways (Austin, 1995; Austin & Pinkleton, 2001; Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, & Marseille, 1999). For example, observing their parents read newspapers favors young people’s news consumptions, especially among kids from high socioeconomic status households (York & Scholl, 2015). Similarly, as children usually watch television in a family context, coviewing has been deemed as an effective way to manage television’s influence on children (Buijzen, Walma van der Molen, & Sondij, 2007; Valkenburg et al., 1999) and a predictor of positive mediation (positively valenced discussion) in family settings (Austin & Pinkleton, 2001).

Another influence comes from communication norms established at home, as they help shape whether young people choose, for instance, to seek out deliberation, consume news media, and talk about public affairs with peers (N. Lee, Shah, & McLeod, 2013; Shah et al., 2009). Indeed, communication between parents and their children has been labeled as one of the most “pervasive forces” (Chaffee, McLeod, & Wackman, 1973, p. 349) in the development of adolescents, and the influence of family in individual behaviors in the area of communication is profound (e.g., Fujioka & Austin, 2002; Hively & Eveland, 2009; McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002). In this context, in the 1970s, McLeod and Chaffee (1972) argued that parent–child communication patterns vary on two dimensions—socio-oriented and concept-oriented. Families high on the concept dimension encourage children to express their convictions, defend their points of view, and consider different sides of an argument, whereas socio-oriented ones favor consensus, harmony in interpersonal relationships, and respect for parents (also McLeod, 2000; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990). Empirical evidence consistently shows that adolescents from concept-oriented families are politically active, have greater motivations to consume news, and are more exposed to media (Borah et al., 2013; N. Lee et al., 2013; Shah et al., 2009). In other words, concept-oriented family communication is positively related to both motivation to keep informed and news media exposure, as it promotes inquiry of opposing perspectives and rewards discussion as a norm, which, in turn, allows adolescents to practice opinion expression and validate their own views (McDevitt, 2005). Although most research on the topic presumes that communication patterns are stable and parent-imposed, there is evidence that parent–child interactions become increasingly bidirectional, with older children being able to influence and negotiate family dynamics (e.g., Saphir & Chaffee, 2002).

Importantly, more than 40 years of research on family communication have shown the impact of parent–child interactions on information processing, interpretation of media content, consumer behaviors, and adoption of social values, and have been linked to parental mediation styles and parental norms (Austin, 1995; Austin & Pinkleton, 2001; Carlson, Grossbart, & Stuenkel, 1992; Fujioka & Austin, 2002; Ledbetter & Schrodt, 2008; Lull, 1980; Tims, 1986). Family communication patterns are correlated with several cognitive activities, relational behaviors, and psychosocial outcomes, including self-esteem, perceived stress, and communication apprehension (Schrodt, Witt, & Messersmith, 2008). This is relevant, as factors shaping news exposure are diverse, and pre-exposure orientations—“what audience members bring to the exposure situation” (McLeod, 2000, p. 48)—could affect how individuals use media content and derive meaning from the news (also Tsfati & Cappella, 2005). The literature shows that among such orientations are worldviews, perceptions of news media roles, and gratifications sought from different types of media content (McLeod, 2000). It is also likely that a sense of civic duty to keep informed, which previous research has found is a strong determinant of news media use in adult life (Poindexter & McCombs, 2001), is also transmitted from parents to children through family communication, particularly among concept-oriented households. Indeed, concept orientation has been deemed a key to both political/civic socialization and news media use (Borah et al., 2013; N. Lee et al., 2013; Shah et al., 2009), much more than socio-orientation, as parent–child communication that emphasizes exploration of different perspectives and rewards discussion both directly and indirectly stimulates youth expression, opinion formation, and discussion, which in turn, favors participation and news consumption. Research on the effects of family communication patterns consistently shows the greater, positive impact of concept orientation on news exposure than socio-orientation (e.g., Fujioka & Austin, 2002; Hively & Eveland, 2009; Lull, 1980; McDevitt, 2005; McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002; Pingree, Hawkins, & Botta, 2000; Saphir & Chaffee, 2002; Thompson, Pingree, Hawkins, & Draves, 1991; Tims, 1986). Accordingly, this study focuses on concept-oriented family communication.

Along these lines, the uses and gratifications approach sees media audiences as active users and motivated individuals, capable of choosing the medium or content that satisfies different personal needs, such as entertainment or interpersonal and social relationships (Ruggiero, 2000). Thus, a variety of gratifications drive media use; these differ across individuals and communication processes, and they relate to specific media use behaviors (A. Lee, 2013). Consumptions of news, in particular, is often associated with information goals (for instance, environment surveillance and the desire to know and understand what happens in the world) and social utility motivations, including the need to appear informed to others and to keep up with what those around us are talking about. Empirical evidence also suggests that younger people favor news consumption due to social motivations (Condeza et al., 2014; A. Lee, 2013). Thus, adolescents do not necessarily look for news as an end in itself, but rather as a means for conversation and opinion expression (Costera Meijer, 2007), although some research suggests that as they get older, young people get increasingly more engaged in information- and opinion-oriented sources as they navigate through independent decision making (Shah et al., 2009; Scherman, Arriagada, & Valenzuela, 2015; Valenzuela, Arriagada, & Scherman, 2014). Arguably, this has to do with the child’s increasing cognitive ability to comprehend more complex messages as well as developmental progression going into adulthood and self-identity (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002; Meadowcroft, 1986; Saphir & Chaffee, 2002). Indeed, given the developmental characteristics of youth, the adolescent years may be the key period in which to study individuals’ interactions with media (Boyd et al., 2011), as their needs and interest change over time, and even their ability to comprehend and discuss issues like those in the news increases with age (e.g., Austin & Pinkleton, 2001).

Gratifications in news exposure, however, are neither mutually exclusive nor the only factors explaining news media consumption (Tsfati & Cappella, 2005). In the contemporary media environment, users rely on the relative weight of multiple reasons and needs to make up their news diet (A. Lee, 2013), including social and parasocial motivations, as well as news use for opinion formation, affirmation, or avoidance (e.g., Conway & Rubin, 1991; E. Huang, 2009; A. Lee, 2013). Both access to different media and source evaluation can also be affected by parental influence as adolescents develop independent decision making (García-Ruiz, Gozálvez, & Aguaded, 2014). A teenager—who is going through a period of definition of habits, skills, and identity—may have varied reasons to expose to news, which, in turn, can be related to multiple other factors, from satisfying cognitive needs to getting material for conversations. Thus, the following hypotheses are posited:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Concept-oriented family communication will positively predict (a) motivation to consume news and (b) news exposure among adolescents.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Adolescents’ motivations to consume news will positively predict their news exposure.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Adolescents’ motivations to consume news will mediate the relationship between family communication patterns and news exposure.

Personality Traits Related to Information Processing

Studies on family communication patterns have also addressed their impact on personality. As L.-N. Huang (1999) argued, parent–child interactions influence not only young people’s ability to cope with an array of situations outside the family environment, but family communication itself plays an important role in “cultivating individuals’ personality characteristics, which reflect the unique ways in which they think, feel, and behave” (p. 231). Conversation-oriented communication suggests parental supportiveness of a child’s autonomy, and research shows it is positively correlated with self-disclosure, self-esteem, and sociability (L.-N. Huang, 1999; Schrodt et al., 2008). Children from concept-oriented families also report lower levels of guilt, greater senses of autonomy and self-direction, and increased resiliency (Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 2005; Givertz & Segrin, 2014). Family communication patterns are linked to information-processing traits as well (Ledbetter & Schrodt, 2008; Thompson et al., 1991). Along these lines, communication norms established in the family can shape the ways in which adolescents interpret reality and define a set of skills necessary for youth socialization (Shah et al., 2009). In this context, the social psychology literature identifies two general dispositions predicting how much people assess and process information—the NC and the need to evaluate (NE). NC refers to the extent individuals are motivated and exhibit a preference for cognitive activities (i.e., think about things; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), and NE is people’s predisposition to spontaneously evaluate their environment (i.e., as either good or bad; Jarvis & Petty, 1996).¹

From a theoretical perspective, the underlying constructs of thinking and evaluating are not considered as the same, and while both personality traits are common to all people—and actually are often correlated (e.g., Bizer, Krosnick, Petty, Rucker, & Wheeler, 2000)—there are differences at the individual level. Indeed, these constructs stress that there are people who are more motivated to think about their environment and others who enjoy developing opinions toward a wide variety of objects.

Although there are numerous studies exploring the relationship between NC and NE, as well as their different effects and consequences (e.g., Tian, 2011), little is known about their origins or antecedents. However, several researchers have demonstrated the influence of family communication patterns in other aspects of personality (for a summary, see Schrodt et al., 2008). Therefore, when it comes to adolescents, concept-oriented communication could also affect the psychological dispositions of cognition and evaluation. A family that favors the pursuit of other points of view and the understanding of the different aspects of a problem may well encourage the need to think about and evaluate the environment. Indeed, there is evidence that such communication contributes to the child’s cognitive mapping and information processing, to the extent that open conversations addressing different viewpoints and arguments stimulate thinking and elaboration (Hively & Eveland, 2009; Lull, 1980). Similarly, news users may well expose themselves to news to gratify their cognitive and evaluative needs, in an effort to better understand the world or better assess an issue or problem (Tsfati & Cappella, 2005). Bizer and colleagues (2000), in fact, argued that the origins of the NC and NE are in the family environment in which people grow, although they do not elaborate further on the topic. Therefore,

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Concept-oriented family communication will positively predict adolescents’ NC and NE.

The literature does show the impact of news processing needs in the motivations to consume news and in news exposure itself. Studies show that NC is a positive predictor of political news consumption, NE correlates with attention to news in general, and both psychological needs relate positively and significantly with gratifications linked to environment surveillance and social utility, at least among adults (David, 2009; Eveland, Shah, & Kwak, 2003; Tian, 2011). Furthermore, as people high in NC enjoy thinking about issues, they tend to seek information from media, and in a political context, those high in NE tend to be heavier media users as they look for relevant information to evaluate, for instance, candidate statements and platforms (Bizer et al., 2004). Given the complexity of communication phenomena, it is not surprising that the influence between these sets of variables is both direct and indirect. In fact, in 1974, Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas urged to trace the social and psychological origins of gratifications leading to different patterns of media consumption, and there is empirical evidence that the motivations to consume news have psychological correlates (Conway & Rubin, 1991; Grabe, Lang, Zhou, & Bolls, 2000). More so, the entire process is not linear, with both communication at home and news media use reinforcing each other, particularly when there are exogenous stimuli, such as an election or a new civics curriculum (McDevitt, 2005). For example, before a conversation, both parents and children might read a newspaper or watch the news to better prepare for the exchange and, in turn, lead to reflection on the meaning of news, the quality of arguments, and opinion processing and formation (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002). Thus,

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Adolescents’ NC and NE will positively predict (a) their motivations to consume news and (b) their news exposure.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Adolescents’ motivations to consume news will mediate the relationship between their NC and NE, and their news exposure.

The final model proposed integrates all the direct and indirect relationships posited before. Accordingly, the last hypothesis completes the mediation predictions between the four sets of variables under consideration and is a natural outcome of the other relationships posited thus far:

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Adolescents’ NC and NE will mediate the relationship between family communication patterns and (a) their motivations to consume news and (b) their news exposure.

As a summary of all the relationships hypothesized here, Figure 1 shows the theorized structural model that will be tested next.

Figure 1.

Theorized structural model.

Method

Context of This Study

We chose to examine the hypotheses in the context of Chile, a prosperous democratic country in Latin America with nevertheless a homogeneous media system (Gronemeyer & Porath, 2015) and high levels of socioeconomic inequality and knowledge gaps among youth (Correa, 2014). It is likely that in societies where such gaps are prevalent, the effects of family communication patterns on news habits are amplified in comparison with more equal societies, because other agents of socialization—for instance, school, the mass media, and information technologies—are less accessible and effective. Understanding the mechanisms of news consumption among youth in Chile can thus shed light on the processes of developing more informed citizens in other societies with high levels of socioeconomic inequality. Still, we would argue that the model and processes examined in the current study are applicable to all societies striving for a more informed citizenry, not only to the case under study.

Data

To test the hypotheses, we conducted in the winter of 2013 a survey on a representative sample of high school students in Chile’s four largest metropolitan areas. The sampling frame was extracted from a database of the Ministry of Education of Chile covering all secondary schools in the country, including public and private institutions. In the sampling frame were all schools with 9th-, 10th-, and 11th-grade students located in the 44 municipalities that make up the four designated metropolitan areas. Using these criteria, the sampling frame consisted of 1,159 high schools serving 316,886 students. From this frame, a total of 163 schools were randomly selected with probability proportional to school enrollment size. Subsequently, the schools’ administrations were contacted to secure authorization for fielding the survey. A total of 105 schools authorized the survey, for a cooperation rate of 64%. In each school, classes were randomly selected so that each student in the 9th- to 11th-grade had an equal chance of being selected. In total, 2,744 students completed the survey.

Because the questionnaire was self-administered, the instrument included a question verifying the students’ attentiveness to the survey (borrowed from Hargittai & Hsieh, 2012, p. 96): “The purpose of this question is to assess how attentive you are answering this questionnaire. For this question, please check the ‘Never’ option”. Nearly 15% (n = 411) of respondents answered incorrectly to this question, suggesting that they were checking off responses randomly. To minimize measurement error, these students were excluded from the statistical analyses. Furthermore, 2.8% (n = 60) of respondents were outside the 13 to 17 age group or had missing data for age, so they were excluded, too, to focus the study exclusively on nonvoting-age adolescents. As a consequence, the current sample size included 2,273 students aged 13 to 17 years.

Instrument

The questionnaire was developed by a team from the School of Communications at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, while the pretest and fieldwork were conducted by the Office of Survey Research of the Sociology Institute at the same university (for more details on the survey, see Condeza et al., 2014). To ensure that the study followed ethical standards, the instrument and consent forms were reviewed and approved by the university’s Ethics Committee. Procedures were designed to protect student anonymity and allow for voluntary participation. In most cases, the selected schools were first contacted by telephone and mail to seek their permission to have their students participate in the study. After obtaining their approval, passive parental consent procedures were used, that is, the schools were asked to distribute among the students and their parents and/or guardians a letter explaining the purpose of the study as well as a form they could return for refusing participation. However, no parent or guardian of eligible students refused participation. Trained data collectors administered the questionnaire in the classroom, and students recorded their responses directly on a booklet. Fieldwork ran continuously from May to July 2013.

Variables

The items used to operationalize endogenous and control variables are described below. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and factor score determinacies, are available in the appendix.

Family communication patterns

Borrowing from survey research on family communication patterns with adolescents (Borah et al., 2013; N. Lee et al., 2013; Shah et al., 2009), participants were asked their level of agreement on a 3-point scale (1 = disagree, 2 = neither disagree nor agree, 3 = agree) with the following statements: “Kids do not question parents in our family” (reversed) and “In our family, kids learn it’s OK to disagree with adults’ ideas about the world.” Both items were used as indicators of a latent variable measuring concept-oriented family communication, with higher values indicating a conceptual orientation.²

NC and NE

The typical NC scale consists of 18 items (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984), whereas the NE scale has 16 items (Jarvis & Petty, 1996). Using these lengthy scales was not feasible for a survey seeking to measure several variables such as ours. Thus, we followed Bizer et al.’s (2004) strategy when using data from the American National Election Study (ANES) and measured NC and NE with two items each, those with the higher factor loadings in prior factor analyses conducted over Spanish-speaking populations (exact question wording was taken from the Spanish-language validated scales of Falces, Briñol, Sierra, Becerra, & Alier, 2001; Horcajo, Díaz, Briñol, & Gandarillas, 2008). To measure NC, participants used the same 3-point used for family communication patterns and rated the following statements: “I would prefer complex to simple problems” and “I find satisfaction in thinking hard and for long hours.” NE was measured with the following items: “I form opinions about everything” and “I have many more opinions than other young people.” The scale of response for NE was the same than for NC.

Motivations for news consumption

Palmgreen, Wenner, and Rayburn’s (1980) scale of gratifications sought from TV news was adapted to all types of news media. The scale includes 15 items, which according to previous studies (Babrow & Swanson, 1988; Levy & Windahl, 1984) can be grouped into four dimensions: surveillance or general information seeking, social or interpersonal utility, entertainment, and parasocial interaction. Of these, the first two are usually the most predictive of news consumption (David, 2009; Eveland et al., 2003). Therefore, the six items relating to surveillance and social utility were included in the analysis. Each item was measured with responses to different statements about why the respondent consumes news. Some of the statements were, “I consume news to keep up with current issues and events,” “to find out about the issues affecting people like myself,” “to support my own viewpoints to other people,” “so I can pass the information on to others,” and “because it’s often entertaining.” Responses were recorded using the above-described 3-point scale.

Exposure to news

Survey participants were asked about the amount of time in a typical day they watch, listen, or read the news in the following media: broadcast television networks, pay (cable and satellite) television networks, radio, newspapers (print and online), Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and video sharing sites like YouTube. In all cases, an ordinal scale ranging from 0 (none) to 5 (3 hr or more) was used. It must be noted that this scale was validated by previous research on news consumption by youth in Chile (Valenzuela, 2013).³

Statistical Analyses

To test the hypotheses, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used. Before examining the structural model proposed in the theoretical framework, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed, allowing all of the endogenous latent variables in the model to covary with one another. Once a satisfactory measurement model was obtained, the structural model was estimated. This two-step approach to SEM is recommended because it tackles both measurement error and magnitude of the hypothesized relationships among variables (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Thus, if there is lack of fit of the structural model to the collected data, we are more certain this is not due to a problem of measurement error. All analyses were conducted with the Stata 13.1 statistical software.

Measurement model

In an ideal world, the CFA would yield a satisfactory fit to the data, deeming unnecessary the respecification of the relationships between indicators and/or latent variables. However, it is possible that in practice, the fit of the model is less than adequate. In these circumstances, the model was modified on both theoretical and empirical grounds, taking heed of Stata’s modification indices only when they were consistent with theoretical expectations.

Structural model

We relied on a hybrid approach to SEM, combining the use of latent variables with multiple indicators and observed variables (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002). Relationships among four groups of latent variables were estimated in a sequential process, based on the implied relationships of the hypotheses: family communication patterns (one variable), information-processing traits (two variables), news gratifications (two variables), and exposure to news (one variable). A sequential process of model construction was preferred over a single structural model to reduce the possibility of identifying spurious relationships.⁴ As the hypotheses posit direct and mediated associations between variables, we also estimated the indirect effects of family communication patterns on news gratifications and news exposure through NC and NE, as well as the relationship between NC and NE and exposure to news through motivations.⁵

Goodness of fit

Model fit was evaluated using a combination of indices, per experts’ recommendations (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). Thus, a model was considered as having an adequate fit if the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was less than 0.070, the comparative fit index (CFI) was at least 0.950, and the discrepancy level (i.e., χ² divided by degrees of freedom) did not exceed 5.000.

Missing data

Less than 10% of the sample had missing values in the variables of interest. Thus, full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) was used, which allows to deal with missing data equal to—or better than—other mechanisms of data imputation (Holbert & Stephenson, 2002).

Results

Measurement Model

The CFA examined six latent variables (concept-oriented family communication, NC, NE, surveillance, social utility, and news exposure) and 23 observed variables. The goodness of fit of this model, however, was not adequate: RMSEA = 0.060 (90% confidence interval [CI] = [0.058, 0.062]), CFI = 0.824, χ² = 1,970.390, df = 215, p < .001, and discrepancy level = 9.164. A check of the modification indices suggested that, consistent with prior research, there was a high correlation between the errors of the latent variables of NC and NE, and between the errors of the latent variables for gratifications sought from news (sees Bizer et al., 2004; Bizer et al., 2000; Eveland et al., 2003). Accordingly, the model was respecified to allow for covariances between the associated errors. When these changes were implemented, the goodness-of-fit statistics of the measurement model improved considerably: RMSEA = 0.031 (90% CI = [0.029, 0.034]), CFI = 0.957, χ² = 624.348, df = 192, p < .001, and discrepancy level = 3.252. Having established the dimensionality of the constructs, we proceeded to test the theorized structural model.

Structural Model

The first structural model estimated the direct relationship from concept-oriented family communication to motivations for news use. The model exhibited adequate fit statistics: RMSEA = 0.034 (90% CI = [0.027, 0.042]), CFI = 0.987, χ² = 94.704, df = 26, p < .001, and discrepancy level = 3.642. H1a predicted a direct and positive influence between conceptual family communication and motivations to consume news. The results show that this influence is statistically significant for both surveillance (standardized β = .891, t value = 8.93, p < .001) and social utility (standardized β = .956, t value = 8.96, p < .001) motivations. Therefore, the data support H1a.

To analyze H1b and H2, exposure to news was added to the structural model and two routes of influence were estimated: from concept-oriented family communication to news exposure (H1b) and from motivations to news exposure (H2). The fit of the model to the data was satisfactory: RMSEA = 0.032 (90% CI = [0.029, 0.036]), CFI = 0.964, χ² = 417.801, df = 125, p < .001, and discrepancy level = 3.342. According to H1b, there would be a direct and positive relationship between concept-oriented family communication and exposure to the news. This hypothesis was not supported (standardized β = −.081, t value = −1.14, p = .255). The relationship between motivations and exposure to news was significant for surveillance (standardized β = .364, t value = 4.08, p < .001) but not for social utility (standardized β = −.004, t value = −0.04, p = .965). Thus, H2 was partially supported.

Due to the previous result, we tested H3, which states that motivations for news use mediate the relationship between family communication patterns and exposure to the news media, with surveillance gratifications. The results supported H3, as there is a positive and statistically significant indirect relationship between concept-oriented communication in the family and news consumption of adolescents by way of increasing the motivation to be exposed to news content (standardized β = .297, t value = 3.60, p < .01).

To test for the remaining hypotheses (H4, H5a, H5b, H6, H7a, and H7b), the variables related to information-processing needs (identified in the CFA model by NC and NE) were added to the model. The model fit was, again, satisfactory: RMSEA = 0.032 (90% CI = [0.029, 0.034]), CFI = 0.955, χ² = 643.126, df = 197, p < .001, and level of discrepancy = 3,265. More specifically, the data supported H4, which posits that there is a positive relationship between family communication patterns and teenagers’ cognitive (standardized β = .232, t value = 2.74, p = .006) and evaluative needs (standardized β = 0.375, t value = 2.56, p = .011). Furthermore, in line with H5a, the results show that NC is positively associated to both surveillance (standardized β = .938, t value = 5.41, p < .001) and social utility gratifications (standardized β = .950, t value = 5.57, p < .001). However, contrary to H5b, neither NC (standardized β = .053, t value = 0.598, p = .550) nor NE (standardized β = .053, t value = 0.598, p = .550) had a significant effect on news exposure. Notwithstanding the absence of a direct relationship between personality traits and exposure to the news, there may be an indirect relationship through motivations for news. This is precisely what posits H6, a hypothesis that received strong support in the case of NC (standardized β = .327, t value = 4.77, p < .001). For NE, in contrast, the indirect relationship was not significant (standardized β = −.063, t value = −1.02, p = .308).

Turning to the last couple of hypotheses, H7a stated that cognitive and evaluative needs of adolescents mediate the relationship between concept-oriented family communication and motivations to consume news. This proposition was supported, as there is an indirect, positive and significant relationship between family communication and motivations by way of personality traits linked to information processing (for surveillance, standardized β = .151, t value = 2.75, p = .006; for social utility, standardized β = .167, t value = 2.79, p = .005). H7b was partially supported as well, as adolescents’ NC (but not NE) was found to mediate the relationship between family communication patterns and their news exposure through surveillance motivations (standardized β = .052, t value = 2.62, p = .009).

The individual analysis of each hypothesis resulted in the final structural model shown in Figure 2, that is, the structural model eliminating all direct links among endogenous variables that were not statistically significant. Table 1 displays the indirect relationships associated with this model, discussed earlier. As shown, communication in families that are oriented toward conceptualization is conducive to teenage news consumption through the development of adolescent personalities characterized by high NCs and evaluation. In turn, NC leads to greater motivations to be exposed to news, particularly when adolescent seek news for surveillance gratifications.

Figure 2.

Final structural model (n = 2,273).

Table 1.

Estimated Indirect Effects in the Final Structural Model (n = 2,273).

							Standardized β
FCP	→	NC	→	Surveillance			.161**
FCP	→	NC	→	Surveillance	→	News	.056**
NC	→	Surveillance	→	News			.267***

Note. Estimates displayed here differ slightly from those reported in the main text as they come from final structural model displayed in Figure 2. FCP = family communication pattern; NC = need for cognition.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The central question motivating the current study was, how can young people become news enthusiasts instead of news avoiders? Prior research has identified several determinants of news media use, including family communication patterns, personality traits associated to information processing, a sense of civic duty, and uses and gratifications sought and obtained from news. Building upon this literature, the current study proposed the first integrated model of how several of these determinants may operate together and influence exposure to news through various direct and indirect ways. By analyzing data from a representative sample of adolescents in the 13 to 17 age group, it was found that concept-oriented family communication is directly associated with information-processing traits of teenagers, such as NC and NE. NC, in turn, is predictive of developing motivations for news seeking, including surveillance and interpersonal utility gratifications, which are more immediate sources of news media consumption. In sum, the findings of this study confirm that adolescence is a key period not only in the development of people’s information habits but also in the definition of personality traits and motivations and that influence in specific behaviors and orientations.

Given the known relationship between news consumption and participation in the civic and political spheres, the findings presented here are relevant for the larger literature on how teenagers are socialized to become adult citizens (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2000; McLeod, 2000). The development of different habits and traits in adolescence leads to long-term consequences in adult life. The results show that beyond the reproduction of news consumption patterns learned at home, adolescents develop their own needs and motivations when exposing themselves to news, and that different forms of parent–child communication may have indirect effects on news consumption—they shape the needs to think about reality and to evaluate the world, and guide the gratifications sought when it comes to reading newspapers, watching TV news, or getting informed via social media.

To our knowledge, this is the first study that demonstrates, empirically, a link between family communication with NC and NE. Bizer and colleagues (2000) had speculated that the causes of a person’s level of NC and NE could lie in conditioning theory. Thus, children who are rewarded by their parents for figuring out the solution to a problem or who have acquired rewards for evaluating objects around them are more likely to come to enjoy engagement in information-processing tasks. The current research supports the notion of tracing traits such as NC and NE back to family communication. Specifically, the finding that in families where concept-oriented communication is more frequent, children are more likely to develop information-processing traits could mean that the reward/punishment system envisioned by conditioning theory is more prevalent in concept-oriented families. Then, again, future research could investigate the empirical validity of this explanation, as well as alternative mechanisms, such as hereditary or genetic factors.

Another noteworthy finding is that NC was a positive predictor of the gratifications that guide news media consumption. This result is consistent with existing research conducted over adult populations showing that information-processing variables are predictive of exposure to news as well as being significant predictors of gratifications linked to surveillance of the environment and social utility (David, 2009; Eveland et al., 2003; Tian, 2011). The novelty, in this case, is that these relationships also seem to hold true for younger cohorts, such as adolescents. By doing so, the study provides an answer to an old call by the pioneers of uses and gratifications research (e.g., Katz et al., 1974) to map out the psychological origins of media gratifications.

Nevertheless—and in contrast to prior research with adults—in the current study, the variables measuring NC and NE were highly correlated. From a methodological perspective, it may be problematic to measure NC and NE with only two items each (although we did so due to space constraints of the questionnaire, the fact that the survey was self-administered, and following prior research with ANES data by Bizer et al., 2004; Bizer et al., 2000). In this way, using a larger battery of items could reveal a higher degree of differentiation between both constructs. But on a more substantive (or theoretical) level, it may well be that in adolescence—when personalities are still being developed—NC and NE are not entirely crystallized and, thus, are coupled together under a general predisposition or orientation toward information-processing tasks. This quandary could be further elucidated in future research on teenage populations replicating the proposed model using the long versions of the NC and NE scales (Cacioppo et al., 1984; Jarvis & Petty, 1996). In addition, other orientations could also be explored in relation to family communication patterns. A good candidate is need for affect (Maio & Esses, 2001), which measures individuals’ proclivity to approach or avoid emotions.

Contrary to initial expectations, concept-oriented communication had no direct link to news consumption, a result on par with some prior research (N. Lee et al., 2013). This does not mean that there is no family influence on news consumption; rather, the impact is indirect, through needs and motivations and, probably, through other mechanisms not explored here, such as a sense of civic duty to keep informed (Poindexter & McCombs, 2001). Likewise, NC and NE were not direct predictors of news exposure, although the impact of NC is positive when mediated through motivations for news consumption. These findings highlight the importance of examining indirect effects. In fact, failure to consider indirect relationships may have led prior research (e.g., N. Lee et al., 2013) to underestimate the influence of concept-oriented communication on adolescents’ news media use.

Taken altogether, the results support the theorized model. To further bolster the robustness of the current findings, we also estimated two alternative, theoretically plausible structural models. First, because NC and NE may be hereditary, families might develop communication patterns resulting from members’ shared attributes. Thus, we estimated a model running from information-processing traits to news exposure through family communication patterns and motivations. Alternatively, it is possible that media exposure in the home is driven by family habits rather than individual habits. Gratifications might therefore represent some sort of rationalizing behavior, rather than a driver of news exposure. Thus, a second alternative model was estimated in which NC and NE influence family communication and news exposure, which in turn predict news gratifications. However, neither of these alternative models exhibited a better fit that the proposed model.

Regarding the limitations of the study, the most important one has to do with causality claims. Although the survey sample is large and representative, the collected data are nonetheless cross-sectional, which hinders attempts to establish cause–effect relationships more firmly. Perhaps a longitudinal approach, in which researchers follow individuals’ from their early childhood all the way through young adulthood, could provide a clearer picture of the role played by the different variables studied here. An example of this type of research, albeit in political science, is the Youth-Parent Socialization Study (Jennings, Stoker, & Bowers, 2009). Shorter term, two-wave panel studies (e.g., Borah et al., 2013; N. Lee et al., 2013), while better equipped to demonstrate causality than cross-sectional surveys, would still be insufficient for examining the long-term processes related to socialization and family communication patterns. In addition, by relying on survey data, social desirability and nonresponse biases are always present, which may introduce measurement error in key variables such as news consumption. Furthermore, our measure of news exposure combines different media, which may exhibit different paths from the general one reported here. In this way, future research may adopt a more fine-grained analysis, discriminating by channel and/or medium. However, as the boundaries across media platforms continue to diffuse, a general approach to news media exposure may still be an efficient measurement strategy.

Given the emphasis on the antecedents of news consumption among adolescents, future studies might also consider the impact and subsequent orientations of news exposure, such as the ways in which people interact with content (e.g., searching for additional information) or the effects of news consumption on political participation. As the family is not the only agent of adolescents’ socialization, other inquiries worth pursuing include the impact of other agents of socialization in the needs, motivations, and exposure to news of this age group, including the influence of school, friends, and other interpersonal networks.

In a scenario where mass media audiences are declining, and both scholars and consultants express concern over the (lack of) interest of youth to be up-to-date and follow hard news, this study is a contribution and provides some clues about the paths that can lead to the socialization of news habits in future citizens. The proposed model posits complex relationships and contributes to our understanding of the socialization of adolescents. Therefore, it would be particularly useful to replicate this model in other contexts, on one hand, and use it to inform the development of media and news literacy programs for schoolchildren, on the other hand. Admittedly, both the conceptualization and assessment of such literacy varies among scholars, educators, policy makers, news professionals, and the public in general (e.g., García-Ruiz et al., 2014; Hobbs, 2011; Porter, 2010). Indeed, there is disagreement about how exactly people could become more media literate, but there is also evidence that this skill can be developed, that it involves critical thinking, and that it helps people use information and communication technologies effectively. In that sense, media literacy has more to do with promoting an understanding of media content and production, rather than simply forming habits of consumption. Research shows that children develop media literacy even in the absence of explicit attempts to encourage and promote it, and given children and young people’s existing knowledge and experience of media, it is not surprising that they show rather high levels of functional literacy, that is, “the skills and competencies needed to gain access to media content” (Buckingham, Banaji, Carr, Cranmer, & Willett, 2005, p. 3).

That said, news media literate adolescents tend to be more intrinsically motivated to follow the news, to the extent of seeing this habit as an identity marker, and given today’s media-abundant environment, it becomes relevant to equip young audiences with the knowledge and competences to navigate it. After all, news content is expected to inform self-governing, critical citizens and promote public interest (Christians, Glasser, McQuail, Nordenstreng, & White, 2009). As the results reported here show, one way to promote this is through conscious processing of information, or NC. Along these lines, and informed on these results, media and news literacy programs could not only seek to encourage teens to read the press or comment the news more often, as they often do, but also motivate their parents and families to keep up to date on current affairs as well. Such experiences developed in other countries (e.g., McDevitt & Chaffee, 2000) show that this process of reverse socialization is possible. Also, it may well be that young people go through a natural progression by which they begin with more entertainment-oriented sources and become more engaged with sources that provide more depth, such as news. If that were the case, adolescents who grow up in socio-oriented families may, nevertheless, be able to become avid news consumers in their adult years. Clearly, more research on news socialization is needed.

Footnotes

Appendix

Descriptive Statistics for Latent Variables.

	M	SD	Factor determinacy
1. Concept-oriented FCP	−0.002	0.232	0.596
2. NC	−0.002	0.306	0.947
3. NE	−0.004	0.325	0.834
4. Surveillance	−0.003	0.361	0.897
5. Social utility	−0.004	0.515	0.914
6. News exposure	−0.001	0.304	0.823

Note. FCP = family communication pattern; NC = need for cognition; NE = need to evaluate.

Authors’ Note

The collection of the data presented here was undertaken by four faculty members from the School of Communications at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile: Rayén Condeza, Constanza Mujica, Sebastián Valenzuela, and Ingrid Bachmann. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors only.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by CONICYT Chile and its Program for Scientific Information (Grant PLU-120024; principal investigator: Rayén Condeza). The first author also received support from the Vice Provost for Research office (VRI) at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (Grant VRI Inicio No. 17/2012) and CIGIDEN (Grant CONICYT/Fondap/15110017) during the writing of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Sebastián Valenzuela (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is assistant professor in the School of Communications at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and associate researcher at Chile’s Research Center for Integrated Natural Disasters Management (CIGIDEN).

Ingrid Bachmann (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is assistant professor in the School of Communications at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.

Marcela Aguilar (MBA, Universidad Finis Terrae) is a doctoral student in the School of Communications at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and director of the School of Communications at Universidad Finis Terrae, Chile.

References

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Austin

E. W.

(1995). The importance of perspective in parent-child interpretations of family communication patterns. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 558-568. doi:10.1177/107769909307000308

Austin

E. W.

Pinkleton

B. W.

(2001). The role of parental mediation in the political socialization process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 221-240. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4502_2

Babrow

A. S.

Swanson

D. L.

(1988). Disentangling antecedents of audience exposure levels: Extending expectancy-value analyses of gratifications sought from television news. Communications Monographs, 55, 1-21. doi:10.1080/03637758809376155

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.111

Bizer

G. Y.

Krosnick

J. A.

Holbrook

A. L.

Wheeler

S. C.

Rucker

D. D.

Petty

R. E.

(2004). The impact of personality on cognitive, behavioral, and affective political processes: The effects of need to evaluate. Journal of Personality, 72, 995-1028. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00288.x

Bizer

G. Y.

Krosnick

J. A.

Petty

R. A.

Rucker

D. D.

Wheeler

S. C.

(2000). Need for cognition and need to evaluate in the 1998 National Election Survey Pilot Study (ANES Pilot Study Report). Retrieved from http://www.electionstudies.org/resources/papers/documents/nes008997.pdf

Borah

Edgerly

Vraga

Shah

(2013). Hearing and talking to the other side: Antecedents of cross-cutting exposure in adolescents. Mass Communication and Society, 16, 391-416. doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.693568

Boyd

Zaff

Phelps

Weiner

M. W.

Lerner

(2011). The relationship between adolescents’ news media use and civic engagement: The indirect effect of interpersonal communication with parents. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 1167-1179. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.004

10.

Buckingham

(2000). The making of citizens: Young people, news and politics. London, England: Routledge.

11.

Buckingham

Banaji

Carr

Cranmer

Willett

(2005). The media literacy of children and young people: A review of the research literature. London, England: Ofcom.

12.

Buijzen

Walma van der Molen

Sondij

(2007). Parental mediation of children’s emotional responses to a violent news event. Communication Research, 34, 212-230. doi:10.1177/0093650206298070

13.

Cacioppo

Petty

(1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

14.

Cacioppo

Petty

Kao

(1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13

15.

Carlson

Grossbart

Stuenkel

J. K.

(1992). The role of parental socialization types on differential family communication patterns regarding consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 31-52.

16.

Chaffee

S. H.

McLeod

Wackman

(1973). Family communication patterns and adolescent political socialization. In Dennis

(Ed.), Socialization to politics (pp. 349-356). New York, NY: Wiley.

17.

Chaffee

S. H.

Schleuder

(1986). Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00096.x

18.

Christians

C. G.

Glasser

McQuail

Nordenstreng

White

R. A.

(2009). Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

19.

Condeza

Bachmann

Mujica

(2014). News consumption among Chilean adolescents: Interests, motivations and perceptions on the news agenda. Comunicar, 43, 55-64. doi:10.3916/C43-2014-05

20.

Conway

Rubin

(1991). Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation. Communication Research, 18, 443-463. doi:10.1177/009365091018004001

21.

Correa

(2014). Bottom-up technology transmission within families: Exploring how youths influence their parents’ digital media use with dyadic data. Journal of Communication, 64, 103-124. doi:10.1111/jcom.12067

22.

Costera Meijer

. (2007). The paradox of popularity: How young people experience the news. Journalism Studies, 8, 96-116. doi:10.1080/14616700601056874

23.

David

(2009). Learning political information from the news: A closer look at the role of motivation. Journal of Communication, 59, 243-261. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01414.x

24.

Eveland

E. P.

Shah

Kwak

(2003). Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model: A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during campaign 2000. Communication Research, 30, 359-386. doi:10.1177/0093650203253369

25.

Falces

Briñol

Sierra

Becerra

Alier

(2001). Validación de la escala de necesidad de cognición y su aplicación al estudio de cambio de actitudes [Validation of the need for cognition scale and its application to the study of attitude change]. Psicothema, 20, 557-562. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=489

26.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

Koerner

A. F.

(2005). Family communication schemata: Effects on children’s resiliency. In Dunwoody

Becker

L. B.

McLeod

Kosicki

(Eds.), The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod (pp. 115-139). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

27.

Fujioka

Austin

E. W.

(2002). The relationship of family communication patterns to parental mediation styles. Communication Research, 29, 642-665. doi:10.1177/009365002237830

28.

García-Ruiz

Gozálvez

Aguaded

J. I.

(2014). The media competence as a challenge for educommunication: Tools of evaluation. Cuadernos.info, 35, 15-27. doi:10.7764/cdi.35.623

29.

Givertz

Segrin

(2014). The association between overinvolved parenting and young adults’ self-efficacy, psychological entitlement, and family communication. Communication Research, 41, 1111-1136. doi:10.1177/0093650212456392

30.

Grabe

M. E.

Lang

Zhou

Bolls

(2000). Cognitive access to negatively arousing news: An experimental investigation of the knowledge gap. Communication Research, 27, 3-26. doi:10.1177/009365000027001001

31.

Gronemeyer

M. E.

Porath

(2015). A study on homogeneity between editorials and news sources opinions in the Chilean reference press. Cuadernos.info, 36, 139-153. doi:10.7764/cdi.36.567

32.

Hargittai

Hsieh

Y. P.

(2012). Succinct survey measures of web-use skills. Social Science Computer Review, 30, 95-107. doi:10.1177/0894439310397146

33.

Haste

(2004). Constructing the citizen. Political Psychology, 25, 413-439. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00378.x

34.

Hively

M. H.

Eveland

W. P.

Jr. (2009). Contextual antecedents and political consequences of adolescent political discussion, discussion elaboration, and network diversity. Political Communication, 26, 30-47. doi:10.1080/10584600802622837

35.

Hobbs

(2011). The state of media literacy: A response to Potter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55, 419-430. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.597594

36.

Holbert

R. L.

Stephenson

M. T.

(2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00822.x

37.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60. Retrieved from http://www.ejbrm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=183

38.

Horcajo

Díaz

Briñol

Gandarillas

(2008). Necesidad de evaluación: Propuesta para su medición en castellano [Need to evaluate: A proposal for its measurement in Spanish]. Psicothema, 20, 557-562. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=3585

39.

Huang

(2009). The causes of youths’ low news consumption and strategies for making youth happy news consumers. Convergence, 15, 105-122. doi:10.1177/1354856508097021

40.

Huang

L.-N.

(1999). Family communication patterns and personality characteristics. Communication Quarterly, 47, 230-243. doi:10.1080/01463379909370136

41.

Jarvis

W. B.

Petty

(1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172-194. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172

42.

Jennings

M. K.

Stoker

Bowers

(2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. Journal of Politics, 71, 782-799. doi:10.1017/S0022381609090719

43.

Katz

Gurevitch

Haas

(1974). On the uses of mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2094393

44.

Ledbetter

A. M.

Schrodt

(2008). Family communication patterns and cognitive processing: Conversation and conformity orientations as predictors of informational reception apprehension. Communication Studies, 59, 388-401. doi:10.1080/10510970802467429

45.

Lee

(2013). News audiences revisited: Theorizing the link between audience motivations and news consumption. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 300-317. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.816712

46.

Lee

Shah

McLeod

(2013). Processes of political socialization: A communication mediation approach to youth civic engagement. Communication Research, 40, 669-697. doi:10.1177/0093650212436712

47.

Levy

M. R.

Windahl

(1984). Audience activity and gratifications: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research, 11, 51-78. doi:10.1177/009365084011001003

48.

Lull

(1980). Family communication patterns and the social uses of television. Communication Research, 7, 319-334. doi:10.1177/009365028000700303

49.

Maio

G. R.

Esses

V. M.

(2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583-615. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.694156

50.

Marchi

(2012). With Facebook, blogs, and fake news, teens reject journalistic “objectivity.” Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36, 246-262. doi:10.1177/0196859912458700

51.

McDevitt

(2005). The partisan child: Developmental provocation as a model of political socialization. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 67-88. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh079

52.

McDevitt

Chaffee

(2000). Closing gaps in political communication and knowledge: Effects of a school intervention. Communication Research, 27, 259-292. doi:10.1177/009365000027003001

53.

McDevitt

Chaffee

(2002). From top-down to trickle-up influence: Revisiting assumptions about the family in political socialization. Political Communication, 19, 281-301. doi:10.1080/01957470290055501

54.

McLeod

(2000). Media and civic socialization of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 45-51. Retrieved from http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(00)00131-2/

55.

McLeod

Chaffee

(1972). The social construction of reality. In Tedeschi

(Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 50-99). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

56.

Meadowcroft

(1986). The impact of family communication patterns on political development: The child’s role. Communication Research, 13, 603-624. doi:10.1177/009365086013004005

57.

Palmgreen

Wenner

Rayburn

J. D.

(1980). Relations between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research, 7, 161-192. doi:10.1177/009365028000700202

58.

Papathanassopoulos

Coen

Curran

Aalberg

Rowe

Jones

. . . Tiffen

(2013). Online threat, but television is still dominant. Journalism Practice, 7, 690-704. doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.761324

59.

Pasek

Kenksi

Romer

Jamieson

K. H.

(2006). America’s youth and community engagement: How use of mass media is related to civic engagement and political awareness in 14-to-22-year-olds. Communication Research, 33, 115-135. doi:10.1177/0093650206287073

60.

Pingree

Hawkins

R. P.

Botta

R. A.

(2000). The effect of family communication patterns on young people’s science literacy. Science Communication, 22, 115-132.

61.

Poindexter

P. M.

McCombs

M. E.

(2001). Revisiting the civic duty to keep informed in the new media environment. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 113-126. doi:10.1177/107769900107800108

62.

Porter

W. J.

(2010). The state of media literacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 675-696. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.521462

63.

Prior

(2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

64.

Ritchie

D. L.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523-544. doi:10.1177/009365090017004007

65.

Ruggiero

(2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 3-37. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02

66.

Saphir

M. N.

Chaffee

(2002). Adolescents’ contributions to family communication patterns. Human Communication Research, 28, 86-108. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00799.x

67.

Scherman

Arriagada

Valenzuela

(2015). Student and environmental protests in Chile: The role of social media. Politics, 35, 151-171. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12072

68.

Schrodt

Witt

Messersmith

(2008). A meta-analytical review of family communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, 75, 248-269. doi:10.1080/03637750802256318

69.

Shah

McLeod

Lee

(2009). Communication competence as a foundation for civic competence: Processes of socialization into citizenship. Political Communication, 26, 102-117. doi:10.1080/10584600802710384

70.

Soroka

Andrew

Aalberg

Iyengar

Curran

Coen

. . . Tiffen

(2013). Auntie knows best? Public broadcasters and current affairs knowledge. British Journal of Political Science, 43, 719-739. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000555.

71.

Thompson

Pingree

Hawkins

R. P.

Draves

(1991). Long-term norms and cognitive structures as shapers of television viewer activity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35, 319-334. doi:10.1080/08838159109364128

72.

Tian

(2011). Communication behaviors as mediators: Examining links between political orientation, political communication, and political participation. Communication Quarterly, 59, 380-394. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583503

73.

Tims

(1986). Family political communication and social values. Communication Research, 13, 5-17. doi:10.1177/009365028601300102

74.

Tsfati

Cappella

(2005). Why do people watch news they do not trust? The need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychology, 7, 251-271. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_2

75.

Valenzuela

(2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: The roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 920-942. doi:10.1177/0002764213479375

76.

Valenzuela

Arriagada

Scherman

(2014). Facebook, Twitter and youth engagement: A quasi-experimental study of social media use and protest behavior using propensity score matching. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2046-2070. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2022/1189

77.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Krcmar

Peeters

A. L.

Marseille

N. M.

(1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and “social coviewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 52-66. doi:10.1080/08838159909364474

78.

York

Scholl

R. M.

(2015). Youth antecedents to news media consumption: Parent and youth newspaper use, news discussion, and long-term news behavior. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 681-699. doi:10.1177/1077699015588191