Shedding light on an apparent inconsistency between the conditional political learning model, which predicts a widening knowledge gap between news and entertainment seekers in high-choice media environments, and the evidence of inadvertent learning from major online outlets, we conducted a field experiment in a real-world setting that exogenously manipulated the relative proportions of news and entertainment in the headline section of a major portal site. Our 3-month experiment produced clear evidence of inadvertent learning among entertainment seekers. Entertainment seekers do not switch from a portal site to other websites, even when the choice of news is boosted, which in turn facilitates inadvertent learning and narrows the knowledge gap between news and entertainment seekers. Longitudinal analysis using a follow-up survey not only demonstrated that the inadvertent learning effect persisted even after 2 months of the experiment but also suggested that the effect spilled over to new learning opportunities.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BartelsL. M. (2014). Remembering to forget: A note on the duration of campaign advertising effects. Political Communication, 31, 532-544. doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.956198
3.
BaumM. A. (2003). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence?Political Communication, 20, 173-190. doi:10.1080/10584600390211181
4.
BodeL. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 24-48. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149
5.
BonfadelliH. (2002). The Internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical and empirical investigation. European Journal of Communication, 17, 65-84. doi:10.1177/0267323102017001607
6.
ChaffeeS.FrankS. (1996). How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast news. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 48-58. doi:10.1177/0002716296546001005
7.
CurranJ.Salovaara-MoringI.CoenS.IyengarS. (2010). Crime, foreigners and hard news: A cross-national comparison of reporting and public perception. Journalism, 11, 3-19. doi:10.1177/1464884909350640
8.
de VreeseC. (2004). The effects of strategic news on political cynicism, issue evaluations, and policy support: A two-wave experiment. Mass Communication & Society, 7, 191-214. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0702_4
9.
DruckmanJ. N. (2005). Media matter: How newspapers and television news cover campaigns and influence voters. Political Communication, 22, 463-481. doi:10.1080/10584600500311394
10.
DruckmanJ. N.FeinJ.LeeperT. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106, 430-454. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000123
11.
ElenbaasM.BoomgaardenH. G.SchuckA. R.de VreeseC. H. (2013). The impact of media coverage and motivation on performance-relevant information. Political Communication, 30, 1-16. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737411
12.
EvelandW. P. J.ScheufeleD. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215-237. doi:10.1080/105846000414250
13.
EvelandW. P. J.ShahD. V.KwakN. (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
14.
FitzmauriceG. M.LairdN. M.WareJ. H. (2011). Applied longitudinal analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
15.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H. (2011). Experimental estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects related to self-selection. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 724-736. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00518.x
16.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15, 1-20. doi:10.1093/pan/mpl008
17.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676-699. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
18.
GentzkowM.ShapiroJ. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 1799-1839. doi:10.3386/w15916
19.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
20.
GuoZ.MoyP. (1998). Medium or message? Predicting dimensions of political sophistication. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10, 25-50. doi:10.1093/ijpor/10.1.25
21.
HillS. J.LoJ.VavreckL.ZallerJ. (2013). How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Communication, 30, 521-547. doi:10.1080/10584609.2013.828143
22.
HindmanM. (2008). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
HovlandC. I.WeissW. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650. doi:10.1086/266350
24.
ImaiK. (2005). Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review, 99, 283-300. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051658
25.
KimY.ChenH. T.De ZúñigaH. G. (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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.005
26.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.JohnsonB. K. (2014). Selective exposure for better or worse: Its mediating role for online news’ impact on political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 184-196. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12036
27.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.KleinmanS. B. (2012). Preelection selective exposure confirmation bias versus informational utility. Communication Research, 39, 170-193. doi:10.1177/0093650211400597
28.
KobayashiT.InamasuK. (2015). The knowledge leveling effect of portal sites. Communication Research, 42, 482-502. doi:10.1177/0093650214534965
29.
KrugmanH. E.HartleyE. L. (1970). Passive learning from television. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 184-190. doi:10.1086/267788
30.
KwakN. (1999). Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: Education, motivation, and media use. Communication Research, 26, 385-413. doi:10.1177/009365099026004002
31.
LechelerS.de VreeseC. H. (2011). Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61, 959-983. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01580.x
32.
LechelerS.de VreeseC. H. (2013). What a difference a day makes? The effects of repetitive and competitive news framing over time. Communication Research, 40, 147-175. doi:10.1177/0093650212470688
33.
LevenduskyM. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science, 57, 611-623. doi:10.1111/ajps.12008
34.
MutzD. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
PriorM. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149-171. doi:10.1080/10584600390211172
36.
PriorM. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 577-592. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00143.x
37.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarized election. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SchaferJ. L.GrahamJ. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
39.
ScheufeleD. A.NisbetM. C. (2002). Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 55-75. doi:10.1177/1081180X0200700304
40.
SmithS. M.FabrigarL. R.NorrisM. E. (2008). Reflecting on six decades of selective exposure research: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 464-493. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00060.x
41.
TewksburyD. (2005). The seeds of audience fragmentation: Specialization in the use of online news sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 332-348. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4903_5
42.
TewksburyD.WeaverA. J.MaddexB. D. (2001). Accidentally informed: Incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 533-554. doi:10.1177/107769900107800309
43.
TichenorP. J.DonohueG. A.OlienC. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159-170. doi:10.1086/267786
44.
ValerianiA.VaccariC. (2015). Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society, 18, 1857-1874. doi:10.1177/1461444815616223
45.
WebsterJ. G.KsiazekT. B. (2012). The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62, 39-56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01616.x
46.
WebsterJ. G.LinS. F. (2002). The Internet audience: Web use as mass behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 1-12. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_1
47.
XenosM. A.BeckerA. B. (2009). Moments of Zen: Effects of The Daily Show on information seeking and political learning. Political Communication, 26, 317-332. doi:10.1080/10584600903053569
48.
YooS. W.de ZúñigaH. G. (2014). Connecting blog, Twitter and Facebook use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Comunicación Y Sociedad, 27, 33-48. doi:10.15581/003.27.4.33-48
49.
ZukinC.SnyderR. (1984). Passive learning: When the media environment is the message. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 629-638. doi:10.1086/268864
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
