IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pui/dpaper/194.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Misunderstood Differences: Media, Perception, and Out-Group Animosity in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Chonnakan Rittinon
  • Boontida Sa-ngimnet
  • Suparit Suwanik
  • Tanisa Tawichsri
  • Thiti Tosborvorn

Abstract

In high-conflict, politically divided, and democratically fragile environments like Thailand, affective polarization and social distrust can undermine the foundations of a health democracy and hinder economic development. We conducted an original survey in 2021 (N = 2,016) during intense political turmoil, uncovering deep out-group animosity between political camps. The cleavages are particularly prominent, revealing distrust and clashes in social values between generations. Our findings indicate that perceived, rather than actual, ideological differences significantly drive out-group animosity. Individuals with extreme political identities who get news from one-sided media outlets that align with their political beliefs—i.e., echo chambers—tend to exaggerate polarization and exhibit greater negative affect and distrust toward the opposite group. Our results show that out-group animosity and the impact of perceived differences are particularly strong in the political domain and could significantly affect the policymaking process.

Suggested Citation

  • Chonnakan Rittinon & Boontida Sa-ngimnet & Suparit Suwanik & Tanisa Tawichsri & Thiti Tosborvorn, 2022. "Misunderstood Differences: Media, Perception, and Out-Group Animosity in Thailand," PIER Discussion Papers 194, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, revised Sep 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:pui:dpaper:194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_194.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2006. "Media Bias and Reputation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 280-316, April.
    2. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    3. John Lott & Kevin Hassett, 2014. "Is newspaper coverage of economic events politically biased?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 65-108, July.
    4. Bernhardt, Dan & Krasa, Stefan & Polborn, Mattias, 2008. "Political polarization and the electoral effects of media bias," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1092-1104, June.
    5. Armaly, Miles T. & Enders, Adam M., 2021. "The role of affective orientations in promoting perceived polarization," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 615-626, July.
    6. Lilliana Mason, 2015. "“I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 128-145, January.
    7. Yphtach Lelkes & Gaurav Sood & Shanto Iyengar, 2017. "The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 5-20, January.
    8. Prajak Kongkirati, 2019. "From Illiberal Democracy to Military Authoritarianism: Intra-Elite Struggle and Mass-Based Conflict in Deeply Polarized Thailand," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 681(1), pages 24-40, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stone, Daniel F., 2019. "“Unmotivated bias” and partisan hostility: Empirical evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 12-26.
    2. John Manuel Barrios & Yael V. Hochberg, 2020. "Risk Perception Through the Lens of Politics in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Working Papers 2020-32, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    3. Barrios, John M. & Hochberg, Yael V., 2021. "Risk perceptions and politics: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 862-879.
    4. Garz, Marcel & Sörensen, Jil & Stone, Daniel F., 2020. "Partisan selective engagement: Evidence from Facebook," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 91-108.
    5. Petter Törnberg & Claes Andersson & Kristian Lindgren & Sven Banisch, 2021. "Modeling the emergence of affective polarization in the social media society," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2023. "Measuring partisan media bias in US newscasts from 2001 to 2012," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    7. Chan, Jimmy & Suen, Wing, 2009. "Media as watchdogs: The role of news media in electoral competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 799-814, October.
    8. Benoit Aubert & Jane Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Thierry Warin, 2021. "La détermination des agendas de discussion par les médias sociaux," CIRANO Project Reports 2021rp-12, CIRANO.
    9. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    10. Jeffrey Cohen & Yuan Ding & Cédric Lesage & Hervé Stolowy, 2017. "Media Bias and the Persistence of the Expectation Gap: An Analysis of Press Articles on Corporate Fraud," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 637-659, September.
    11. Federico Vaccari, 2023. "Influential news and policy-making," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1363-1418, November.
    12. Felix Chopra & Ingar K. Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2019. "Do People Value More Informative News?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8026, CESifo.
    13. Helbling, Marc & Jungkunz, Sebastian, 2020. "Social divides in the age of globalization," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(6), pages 1187-1210.
    14. Benjamin Barber & Daniel J. Blake, 2024. "My kind of people: Political polarization, ideology, and firm location," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 849-874, May.
    15. Vicky Chuqiao Yang & Tamara van der Does & Henrik Olsson, 2021. "Falling through the cracks: Modeling the formation of social category boundaries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, March.
    16. Giuberti Coutinho, Lorena, 2021. "Political polarization and the impact of internet and social media use in Brazil," MERIT Working Papers 2021-032, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Ozerturk, Saltuk, 2022. "Media access, bias and public opinion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    18. Archishman Chakraborty & Parikshit Ghosh, 2016. "Character Endorsements and Electoral Competition," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 277-310, May.
    19. Kawamura, Kohei & Le Quement, Mark T., 2023. "News credibility and the quest for clicks," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    20. Piolatto, Amedeo & Schuett, Florian, 2015. "Media competition and electoral politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 80-93.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Perceived polarization; Out-group animosity; Media bias; Echo chamber;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • P48 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pui:dpaper:194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pierbth.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.